Pharyngula

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 10, 2009 12:02 AM

Watch tonight's interview with Jeff Sharlett. It seems that the man who introduced the "Kill The Gays" bill in Uganda is a member of The Family. The Family is the group that started and runs The Presidential Prayer Breakfast. And they have invite this man to be part of the next one in February.

I feel ill.

Posted by: Andyo | December 10, 2009 12:07 AM

By the way, that video is the one where he makes an up an elaborate excuse to fondle George Foreman. That dude is gaaaay.

Posted by: tdanielmidgley | December 10, 2009 12:12 AM

I can't tell to what extent he's a loathsome individual promoting lies, and to what extent he's a sad little man who's locked away the kind of sexuality he's wanted all his life.

Oh, what the hell. Both.

Posted by: Midnight Rambler | December 10, 2009 12:19 AM

FTR, he also fondled Jason Jones when interviewed for The Daily Show (video here). They did a pretty good smackdown of him as well. His wife looks like a Thai picture bride, and you can hear a collective groan from the audience when a picture of her is shown.

Posted by: Sarah T | December 10, 2009 12:31 AM

If I could chose to be gay, I would try to seduce Rachel Maddow

Posted by: Jarred C. | December 10, 2009 12:44 AM

Did they groan because of what she looked like, or because he showed a picture of his family as "proof" that he was cured?

Posted by: Rorschach | December 10, 2009 12:55 AM

*shudder*

Who is this freak ?
The revulsion I feel listening to this guy is only equalled by my revulsion for rats and giant spiders.

Posted by: bckcntry | December 10, 2009 12:57 AM

Anybody notice that at 6 minutes, when talking about his website's message, he almost says "myth"?

Posted by: hznfrst | December 10, 2009 1:02 AM

I so want to smash this creep's face into hamburger, but won't because that would be bad...maybe...

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 10, 2009 1:06 AM

Pygmy Loris, Rachel loves to debate. In the early days of her show, her fake uncle, Pat Buchanan was a semi-regular. As you can guess, they agreed on nothing. One of her great strengths is she can remain calm even when things get personal. I loved how she let Cohen go off on different tangents just to clobber him with the fact that he is unaccredited. It seems like it should be easy to do but sadly, it is not.

Posted by: glenister_m | December 10, 2009 1:12 AM

Wouldn't he be technically bisexual, and he has chosen to live a straight life (while still setting off gaydar as soon as you look at him)?

I would say there is a big difference between someone who is gay and lives a straight life; and someone who is bisexual and lives a straight life. The latter may claim to be 'cured', and not experience other feelings if they have a great relationship with their significant other; but I doubt the former could claim the same.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 10, 2009 1:17 AM

Beth B, it would seem that you need to grab a tennis racquet, beat a pillow and yell; "Mom! Why! Why! Why did I bond too closely with you!"

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 10, 2009 1:20 AM

Janine,

Yeah, I used to love watching her debate Buchanan. It was so much fun. I'm just impressed by her ability to remain so calm on camera. If I had a TV show, I'd be the left's version of Glen Beck! Crying about how the Right is destroying my country :)

Posted by: Shadow | December 10, 2009 1:22 AM

Is it me - but when the slime is speaking / smiling (is that a mile?) I'm reminded of Jack Nicholson's version of the Joker's smile?

Posted by: Levi in NY | December 10, 2009 1:28 AM

What the fuck? He wanted to fuck men...because he craved a bond that he didn't have with his father? That's messed up. And I really don't think this is what gay men are after.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | December 10, 2009 1:42 AM

The revulsion I feel listening to this guy is only equalled by my revulsion for rats and giant spiders.

At least rats and spiders are honest about their intents. This guy is neither "cured" nor interested in helping gays.

Posted by: Talen Lee | December 10, 2009 1:54 AM

The thing that gets right on my tits about the whole affair - not that I have a pair, I worriedly notice - is his use of 'hate crime.'

A hate crime is when someone commits a criminal act for reasons motivated by means of race, religion, sexuality or all those categorical things.

An unfair judgment? Perhaps. A hair-trigger reaction to a sensitive topic? Maybe. But a hate crime? Never. He was not beaten. He was not hurt. He had no criminal act, no act he could prosecute; so at worst, he was discriminated against. But Hate Crime sounds so much more visceral.

Further, he claims the book is not about curing homosexuality; yet on the cover, it says 'healing homosexuality.' That's part of the title of the damn book.

Our words through loose use will lose their edge, and this man is a fine demonstrator of how loosely some will use them.

Posted by: sarahb | December 10, 2009 2:33 AM

This guy is ridiculous. He claims he is the victim of a hate crime because he got kicked out of a psychological association? WTF? Mean while he's stoking the fire for real hate crimes to happen. This guy is a lying sack of shit.
The very thin silver lining of all this is that it makes me love Rachel Maddow even more. As if I weren't crushed out enough!

Posted by: Jarred C. | December 10, 2009 2:52 AM

For all those getting riled up about this guy, here's a nice little read that might bring you back into a good mood:

some thought candy

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/jm_birkett#20113 | December 10, 2009 2:54 AM

I was impressed, I've never seen anyone on TV spout so much harmful bullshit and not end up shouting and interrupting the interviewer the whole time.

I did find it amusing how he's adamant that it's not a "cure", yet refers to his own "healing process". So he's just helping other people heal I guess. Not a cure at all.

Posted by: Jarred C. | December 10, 2009 2:58 AM

@#41 "The real reason the passage should be removed is that it isn't true."

I thought the same thing when I heard that.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | December 10, 2009 3:17 AM

'Just pray and God will take it away...it doesn't work like that because there's deep psychological reasons for this...'

Er, no - the reason God doesn't take it away is because if God exists, he's the one who made you that way in the first place. If he's watching, he's reveling in your suffering and misery; it's all part of his 'plan', apparently.

Posted by: Rorschach | December 10, 2009 3:34 AM

if he were a decent person

Well, I think we covered that one.

Posted by: SBC Apostate | December 10, 2009 4:20 AM

Penn and Teller gave this self-denialist a good thrashing on the "Family Values" episode of Bullshit! They referred to him throughout as "Dick".

Posted by: katieinseattle | December 10, 2009 4:41 AM

Fuck, his fucking smirk pisses me off so hard. I want to stick his head in a microwave.

Fuck.

Posted by: devnulljp | December 10, 2009 4:57 AM

Caine 10, 2009 4:41 AM | #51
He's not even worth spitting on.

True, but a swift kick in the nuts is long overdue wouldn't you agree?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 10, 2009 5:21 AM

devnulljp @ 52:

True, but a swift kick in the nuts is long overdue wouldn't you agree?

*Thinks for about 1 second* Can't argue with you there. I don't think a kick would do it though. Considering he's been more than happy to help institute a death policy for gay people, I'd rather he didn't keep his nuts at all. Perhaps he'd manage some empathy then, although I doubt it.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | December 10, 2009 5:45 AM

John Morales, #23, wrote:

I find Cohen's insincerity and smarminess in that interview rather revolting.

Yep, smarmy is the word I use. He's certainly exhibiting more than his fair share of smarm* in the interview.

*Apparently 'smarm' isn't word. How odd.

Posted by: shonny | December 10, 2009 6:15 AM

That delectable Rachel must be a major asset to any network. And she doesn't talk over people either.
Poor dimwitted sod walking into that redressing!

Posted by: Tuff | December 10, 2009 6:37 AM

I think the fundamental question was missing:
"And what are the deep psychological traumas that make one person STRAIGHT?"
Idiot: "None, that's normal!!!"
Interviewer: "Hence your claims are just motivated by prejudice and hate".

Posted by: Tuff | December 10, 2009 6:49 AM

Another one: "Mr Unlicensed Ex-Gay Idiot, what are the psychological problems of apes, penguins, dolphins and individuals of virtually every animal species that have homosexual behavior??"

Posted by: Pinkydead | December 10, 2009 7:03 AM

That's brilliant, but I think it's disingenuous of many comments to the suggest that this guy is gay.

He's clearly bi-sexual.

Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2009 7:23 AM

Adrian Tippets,

it's not only the ex-gay movement that's exporting its homophobia to Uganda and other African countries, but also many conservative US Evangelicals (ranging from megachurch minister Rick Warren to Holocaust revisionist ).

They portray victories for equality in the US as evidence for the encroaching gay conspiracy and a worldwide neo-colonial threat, exciting bigotry and violence among their African audiences.
Some kind of collateral damage of the US culture wars.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | December 10, 2009 7:46 AM

Maddow keeps digging, and last night's show deals directly with The Family and its connection to the Ugandan bill.

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/12/video-focus-on-the-family.html

Posted by: Anders | December 10, 2009 8:26 AM

That's beautiful.

This is also a good reminder that there are not always two sides to every story. Sometimes the responsible thing to do as a journalist is to shame the proponents of one side of the argument. American journalists seem fixated with the idea that both sides need to be given the same respect and treatment no matter what. That's not always the right thing to do. Sometimes the thing to do is to shine a light at the fuckers and watch them squirm. This is a perfect illustration of that.

Posted by: Anders | December 10, 2009 8:40 AM

[quote]Am I missing something?[/quote]

That it's not a factually correct statement.

Posted by: lordshipmayhem | December 10, 2009 8:57 AM

Rorschach @ #14: Rats can make nice pets, and so can large spiders (especially tarantulas).

On the other hand, if Cohen were taken to an SPCA shelter, they'd have to put him down as unadoptable, possibly rabid.

Posted by: lordshipmayhem | December 10, 2009 9:14 AM

Laura @ 71:

So... "40% of molestations are committed by people who engage in homosexual activity". Doesn't that mean that 60% are committed by straight people? Am I missing something?

No, it means that like many a woo-ster, Cohen failed at Grade 5 math. See Fox News and their statistics about belief in anthropogenic global warming, which added up to something like 120%.

In other words, Cohen is NOT smarter than a 5th grader.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | December 10, 2009 9:35 AM

@Laura - I think you hit it right on the head.

The majority of molestations are done by straight, white, middle-aged men, usually married with kids, and they tend to be done to their own children or children they have a relationship with. Boys or girls, it doesn't matter, I think I read somewhere that more boys than girls are molested, but I'm not gonna start researching it on my work computer.

Not related to Laura:

Cohen makes me sick, really. He's lying about his credentials to try to sell a book filled with lies and half-truths. If this guy is the reason for the Uganda bill, then if I were him (forbid the thought) I would be standing up and fiercely railing against it. He seemed almost apologetic to the Uganda bill in that interview.

Also, Rachel Maddow totally owned him. I think I love her.

Posted by: Foggg | December 10, 2009 10:04 AM

@ Walton #55

when Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann and the like interview people they dislike, they typically end up shouting at and berating the interviewee.

You have somehow convinced yourself the "shouting and berating" Olbermann engages is with interviewees. In fact, he virtually never interviews "people he dislikes" or opposes.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | December 10, 2009 10:34 AM

I'm afraid that homophobia is nothing new in Africa. When I was in the Peace Corps, the health and admin staff were very explicit about what would happen to you if you were found to be gay--prison if you survived your arrest.

I did engage some African friends in conversations about my gay and lesbian friends in the US. Most simply refused to believe that homosexuality was even possible, and the rest said, "Oh, we don't have that here." If you shoot anyone who comes out of the closet, after awhile people keep the door closed and then the rest of the society doesn't have to confront reality.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | December 10, 2009 10:58 AM

I love it: "In the third edition..." Ya, your methods are so thorough you missed patent, unqualified, unprofessional ravings *in the transition* from the first edition to the second. In fact, that your crap got published at all is an example of the shoddiness of the review process from the very outset. I want to know who published his book even the first time, because if it's a right-wing paper mill (and chances are fairly high that it is since Cohen's ilk are so deathly concerned about homosexuality), then we'll have concrete confirmation that right-wing verbal fanaticism is killing people.

Cohen can play "aw shucks" and "gosh darn those bad people" all he wants. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing, as reading the book sand his own website hows. He couldn't defend the race bit, yet, it's in the book. He couldn't defend the anti-gay rhetoric, yet it's in his book. He can't defend the stats, yet they are in his book. Similarly to Ron Paul, seemingly every nefarious con artist in publishing has converged on Cohen's career to spread crap using his poor old name. In fact it appears everyone affiliated with that effort, including himself, has been kicked out of or disbarred from nearly every professional governing body they've been a part of. This guy must have his masters from the same place Orly Taitz got hers.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | December 10, 2009 11:17 AM

glenister_m (@22):

I would say there is a big difference between someone who is gay and lives a straight life; and someone who is bisexual and lives a straight life. The latter may claim to be 'cured', and not experience other feelings if they have a great relationship with their significant other....

Hmmm... I would say the proper term for a bisexual person living a "straight" life is not so much cured, but monogamous. People in exclusive relationships don't stop experiencing "other feelings," they just don't act on those feelings. The difference lies in what set of people they're not cheating with. I wouldn't assume a bisexual in an exclusive relationship with a person of the opposite sex was "cured" (an odious term, in this context, on so many levels) unless he or she made that claim. What's really going on is that that person is not cheating with roughly twice as many people (which, I know, sounds like a Woody Allen joke, but you know what I mean).

If all the people Richard Cohen would cheat with are all other men (which you have to suspect is the case, just from listening to him), then he's still gay, and his marriage is a sham... even if he is able to "close his eyes and think of England" for the sake of promoting his hateful and greedy program of conversionharassment.

Posted by: MrKafka | December 10, 2009 11:40 AM

I just want to point out that Cohen's wife is Korean, not Thai. It was a marriage arranged by Sun Myung Moon.

Posted by: heironymous | December 10, 2009 11:45 AM

The question I wanted to see asked was "Why?"

Why do you feel the need to "heal" gay people?

It's always seemed to me that the people who hate gay people the most are the ones who haven't really spent time with gay people living their lives.

Posted by: RagingBullwinkle | December 10, 2009 11:47 AM

Off topic but Squid related:

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/what_kind_of_sick_fuck_would?utm_source=onion_rss_daily

Posted by: Kaddath | December 10, 2009 11:57 AM

"Former homosexual" must be code for "I'm back in the closet and deluded that everyone believes my I'm not gay anymore".

And as for removing that paragraph on upcoming editions of his book, sorry, but that's a bell you can unring you douche bag.

Posted by: The Pint | December 10, 2009 12:03 PM

I love Rachel - her professionalism and ability to skewer scumbags like Cohen without resorting to cheap theatrics and hysterics is always a treat to see. It's also damned sexy.

However, I still feel in desperate need of a shower after listening to Cohen's crap. Smarmy indeed. *shudder*

Posted by: Michelle R | December 10, 2009 12:12 PM

We have an assclown like that here in French Canada (Best canada in the land.) I forget his name, but he gives conventions about "how parents can develop their children's heterosexual potential".

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | December 10, 2009 12:16 PM

heironymous (@90):

The question I wanted to see asked was "Why?"

Why do you feel the need to "heal" gay people?

I think Rachel elicited the answer to that question, even though she didn't ask it directly: MONEY. I mean, did you hear what they're charging for their counseling, classes, study materials, etc.?

It would be nice to think people like Cohen had a sincere, albeit misguided, compassionate concern for the (almost certainly nonexistent) immortal souls of their fellow humans who are "afflicted" with teh gay... but one look at that price list puts the lie to any such hope.

In a way, I'd almost have more respect (to the extent that there can be order among infinitesimal values) for an honest homophobe than I do for this clown, who knows what it's like to be gay in a largely disapproving society and chooses, instead of doing anything actually helpful, to profit off his fellow homosexuals' suffering... and to do so in a way that tends to exacerbate that suffering by reinforcing the latent homophobia in the straight population.

Jebus... the more I think about this, the more pissed I get.

Posted by: Paul W., OM | December 10, 2009 12:18 PM

BTW, let me pound my nail in a little further.

The reason it's important that those two claims are both false is that he's contributing to people being killed on the grounds that they can change, and if they choose not to they're incorrigibly evil and unrepentant sinners.

He's offering a phony "choice," and people are going to die for knowing better than to make that choice.

Posted by: Darrell E | December 10, 2009 12:35 PM

This whole thing is pretty depressing. But, it was very nice to watch Rachel expose this guy as a dishonest moron. I suppose he may actually just be one more deluded unhappy victim of a vicious subculture trying desperately to fit himself into the prescribed mold.

I would also like to comment that although I can understand why it is important at this time for gay people to stress that being gay is not a choice, I think it sucks. It is just one more indicator of how far we have yet to go. It should not matter in the slightest whether a persons sexual orientation is determined by their genetics and developement, or by their choice. It just pisses me off, or alternatively makes me sad, that it is not obvious to most people that everyone should be free to CHOOSE to have sex with anyone else they want to, consensually of course. I understand the reasons why this is currently a problem, but all the reasons suck.

Posted by: AdamK | December 10, 2009 12:49 PM

Being a Brit I'm not really familiar with Rachel Maddow.

She got her doctorate at Oxford on a Rhodes scholarship. Not as non-British as most of us.

Per Wikipedia:

...Maddow earned a degree in public policy from Stanford University in 1994. At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship. She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. In 2001, she completed her Doctor of Philosophy degree (styled a DPhil) in politics from Oxford University. Her doctoral thesis is titled HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons. She was the first openly gay American to win a Rhodes scholarship.

Posted by: skeptifem | December 10, 2009 12:56 PM

god damn it. I can't be the only one sick of hearing how many people would do rachel maddow. It is so not relevant to anything, and it isn't a compliment to be a fucking professional journalist and have people (for or against her) constantly make comments about her appearance or sexual orientation. It just doesn't happen to dudes, and it's bullshit. It doesn't just apply to maddow, but jesus christ. you are all praising her for her work, and yet how sexually useful she is to any given person is somehow an important side note that has to be made over and over and over again. Anyone who wants to check out the hateful shit on youtube will see that it is virutally impossible to find a video of her that doesn't devolve into a discussion of how fuckable/not fuckable/totally dykey maddow is in the comments. This is how she is talked about everywhere. How would you feel if people said crap like that in response to your WORK? And then your supporters put a mini version of it in their comments as well? It would make you feel like you can never just be listened to, you have to be evaluated and rated as a meat envelope constantly. Even when she is a fucking lesbian; a person who could not POSSIBLY make it clearer that they do not want male attention, she is having her prongability commented on by a random assortment of dudes at all times. Do you think that none of us realize that this kind of thinking doesn't end with tv pundits; that it extends to the dudes we all have to be in society with? Only a fool would think every day women are not subject to this kind of attention. I am pretty sure most of you have heard it about women you know, anyway.

Heres a clue: I don't give a shit how many of you would totally prong her if you were given the opportunity; keep it to your god damned selves. its a painful reminder of my default status in society that i don't really need on top of uh, everything else that happens every day. thanks.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 10, 2009 1:04 PM

Thank you, skeptifem. I second every thing you said.

Posted by: Paul W., OM | December 10, 2009 1:17 PM

skeptifem,

I do see your point, but one of he great advantages of having Rachel Maddow on our side is, sadly, that she's hot and just seems so darned nice in general. She's just so all-around cute lovable, for somebody really really smart who says some very pointed things.

I wish I that it wasn't that way---that a woman less "beautiful" and less nice than Maddow could get a job like that.

But in the meantime I'm glad she's "hot" and has a charming demeanor, so that we can get an out lesbian Rhodes Scholar liberal on the air doing what she does, on her very own show.

Your point is taken---maybe I shouldn't have said such an objectifying thing to make a cheap joke---or maybe I should have clarified why I think it's unfortunately relevant, right there.

Normally I wouldn't have. In this case I thought there was a little bit of leeway because there were also women pointing out her attractiveness, and seriously discussing the content of what she said, son it wasn't just a gang of guys ogling the babe instead of acknowledging her smarts.

I, for one, think that people here have done a reasonably good job of making it clear that what's best about Maddow is not her looks.

The large bulk of my comment was about content, for example---the kind of argument to make against a homophobic shithead like Cohen. Near as I can tell, I was saying exactly the same kind of thing I'd say about a straight white man or a less stereotypically attractive woman who made the arguments she made, and not the ones she didn't.

But I also think you're likely right that we shouldn't get too carried away with the hottie fixation.

Sorry.

Posted by: Quinn O | December 10, 2009 1:35 PM

PZ makes excellent points at 112, but I'm not entirely in agreement with Skeptifem.

I don't think people's openness to changing their sexual orientation here is so much about Maddow's appearance or how "fuckable" she is. It's the way she can take a smarmy waste of skin like Cohen to task, in such a calm, classy, and razor sharp way. *This* is what's so appealing and admirable and sexy about her - and you don't have to swing her way to think so. I love her too.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 10, 2009 1:41 PM

Sorry, Josh. Just because you would not mind being hit on while at work does not take away how tiring it is to hear from guys just how much they would like to hit on some public female figure. Isn't it enough to say that she does her job really well? She she also have to be some public masturbatory aid?

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 10, 2009 1:45 PM

It is "Does she", not "She she".

Posted by: Josh | December 10, 2009 1:46 PM

Yes, Janine. I'm sure it is tiresome. But it was okay for the women to say these things? I think the first two comments of that nature were from women. This, of course, doesn't make it right, but it does make it a bit unfair that males are being singled out.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 10, 2009 1:58 PM

Josh, let's just say I was not very happy with those comments either.

Do I find Rachel Maddow attractive? Yes. But that is the nature of television, one does not find many unattractive people with shows. But that has nothing to do with how she runs her show. And I have liked her since she was the regular sub for Keith Obermann.

But it is a regular happening, when ever a woman is a topic of discussion, invariably, the silly fanboys are going to start going off about how fuckable she is. And like I said before, your desires about being treated in such a away has nothing to do with this.

Posted by: Becca the Over Socialized | December 10, 2009 2:03 PM

I think the difference here is that most men aren't used to being defined by their looks, so any expression of sexual interest that way is a bonus. Most women are defined by their looks (good or bad) so having someone say that they'd like to hit on you (or seduce you) is a replacement for appreciation of their brains and/or personality.

Posted by: Sarah from Chicago | December 10, 2009 2:08 PM

I'm with skeptifem and PZ on this one.

As a lesbian woman, I'm one of the few here that is in Ms. Maddow's 'target demographic'.

And you know what? It's doesn't matter a shite.

Look, women are constantly being told in our society that no matter how awesome we are, no matter how competent we are, no matter how intelligent, strong, resilient, etc we are, that the ultimate judge of our worth is how fuckable we are.

And while yes, so many here are saying they want to fuck Rachel Maddow because of how intelligent, poised, assertive, awesome she is ... it still means that the yardstick that you're using to measure that intelligence, poise, assertiveness, awesomeness, etc of a woman is HOW FUCKABLE SHE IS.

Like it or not, the majority of people here DON'T think the same about male presenters they admire. The straight men don't think that they wish they could change their orientations, or the orientations of the guy they admire. And similar can be said about the other orientations and genders of people here.

This is an example of how such is heterosexist and homophobic in our society. And what we refer to the 'male gaze' ... ie the worth of a woman is determined principally by how sexually available a woman is to some heterosexual man.

And does anyone else find it ironic that in a thread speaking about the stupidity and insanity of the ex-gay movement is in general, and one ex-gay numbnut in particular, the response from so many men here is expressing their approval by saying they wish they could have sex with her?

I mean, this is leaving aside the fact that she has a long-term committed life-partner.

I really wish this weren't so stunningly predictable, is all.

Posted by: Josh | December 10, 2009 2:12 PM

Sarah:
You say, "And while yes, so many here are saying they want to fuck Rachel Maddow because of how intelligent, poised, assertive, awesome she is ... it still means that the yardstick that you're using to measure that intelligence, poise, assertiveness, awesomeness, etc of a woman is HOW FUCKABLE SHE IS."
You've got it backwards. They are implying that the metric for 'how fuckable she is' is how intelligent...
Huge difference.

Posted by: Sarah from Chicago | December 10, 2009 2:23 PM

Josh @130 -

You've got it backwards. They are implying that the metric for 'how fuckable she is' is how intelligent... Huge difference.

No, I don't.

They are expressing their value of her intelligence in terms of them wanting to fuck her; hence, the scale of worth of her intelligence is fuckability.

Not very intelligent; not very fuckable, very intelligent; very fuckable.

Hence, the measure is how fuckable she is.

Posted by: llewelly | December 10, 2009 2:35 PM

Mr. I Ran Screaming into the Closet and Nailed the Door.

Posted by: Josh | December 10, 2009 2:39 PM

Sarah,
The measurement being taken is 'how fuckable she is.' The yardstick, that which is used to measure her fuckability, is her intelligence, poise, etc. You had it backwards.

Reading what I just typed, I realized how ridiculous this has become. Still amusing though.

Posted by: AdamK | December 10, 2009 2:44 PM

Maddow looks like Athena to my eyes.

I don't want to have sex with her.

I would love it if women looked at me as a piece of meat. Seriously. That's why this issue is so hard to understand for a lot of men. You're right, skeptifem, but using the approach of "how would you feel if the situation were reversed?" won't work with most men. I, and I think many other men, would LOVE it if the situation were reversed.

Would you love it if MEN looked at you as a piece of meat? That's the thought experiment that actually "reverses the situation." Or is that "hard to understand"?

Posted by: Josh | December 10, 2009 2:49 PM

jesus there-is-no-god-damned christ! I would think fellow skeptics would have been trained in logic.

Posted by: Quinn O | December 10, 2009 2:55 PM

To a certain degree, I think we all notice the attractiveness of others, and we all like to think that we're attractive.

I find it kind of reassuring to hear that people can find non-physical things, like intelligence and savvy, sexy. This means that it's possible to be at least somewhat sexy right up until senility sets in, despite the fact that our skins and soft appendages get progressively closer to the floor after age 30.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | December 10, 2009 3:07 PM

Hang on a minute.

Men (at least on this blog) do, sometimes, get exactly the same kind of attention. I distinctly remember a thread in which Richard Dawkins was widely described as "hot", for instance. And in one of the incarnations of the Endless Thread, a number of female commenters were joking about how they'd like to see nude photos of David Marjanović. The whole "intelligence is sexy" thing seems to be a long-running Pharyngula in-joke; but it's applied to men, in my experience, just as much as to women.

I honestly don't think that expression of sexual interest in Maddow is intrinsically sexist here. There's a real difference between "X is a good journalist AND she's hot" and "X is a good journalist BECAUSE she's hot". The latter is inherently objectifying, the former is not. My respect for Maddow (or any other woman in public life) as a professional is unaffected by what she looks like. But if some people also happen to be sexually interested in her, I see nothing automatically wrong with that.

Posted by: Bobber | December 10, 2009 3:10 PM

I made a comment above regarding my admiration for Rachel Maddow's talents as a journalist and an interviewer.

Assuming for a moment that I find Rachel Maddow attractive, I wouldn't find it necessary to comment upon it, for the following reasons:

(a) we're discussing Rachel's ability to completely shred an idiot during an interview, which has zero to do with how "fuckable" she is, and has no relevance;

(b) I don't think for a second that Rachel herself would be flattered by my mentioning how her words/image might cause a surge to my loins, and

(c) why should anyone else give a damn who or what it is that I find attractive?

Also, isn't it just good manners not to say to someone, "You just made a great point about that issue - and by the way, I have an erection while I'm telling you this"?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | December 10, 2009 3:17 PM

...and I just realized Sarah has no idea who I am, because everywhere else I'm thinking about having seen her comment I have a different username. So I'll just slink away in embarrassment now.

Posted by: Paul W., OM | December 10, 2009 3:29 PM

Walton,

Men (at least on this blog) do, sometimes, get exactly the same kind of attention. [...]

Yes. I seem to recall MAJeff saying that sort of thing from time to time, and nobody objecting. (Pardon me if that's a misattribution...)

Not that they necessarily should get exactly the same kind of attention. Given the asymmetry between male and female in our culture, and the other asymmetry between gay and straight, arguably it's like the N word in two ways. It's not as bad to talk about a man being "hot" as a woman. Women are already faced with plenty of objectification.

It's also not as bad for a gay man to do it as for a straight woman to do it, because we do hear plenty about Brad Pitt or whoever from a fair number of straight women---yes, we get it, you think he's sexy!---and less often from gay men, who in many contexts are basically not allowed to express their sexuality the way straight people can.

Pharyngula is a safe space for that kind of expression---nobody is going to go "ICK! MEN HAVING SEX WITH EACH OTHER!" or if they do, they'll get ridiculed and MAJeff's (or whoever's) right to express their feelings will be validated.

The whole "intelligence is sexy" thing seems to be a long-running Pharyngula in-joke;

Yes. And that's significant. It seems to be acceptable around here to express sexuality, and to express admiration for people's minds by saying they're sexy---sometimes, by some people. There's apparently no blanket rule against sexually objectifying people.

We've had a some number of women---mostly straight, I think---make a running joke of their being "sluts" and joking about doing people, and stuff like that.

but it's applied to men, in my experience, just as much as to women.

I wonder about that. I have no idea of the relative frequencies. It does seem clear that gay men sexually objectifying straight men happens here disproportionately often, relative to the proportion of gay men in the general population---and I think that's as it should be.

It's good that Pharyngula is a safe place for people to express their non-heteronormatively-standard sexuality, but it would get really fucking old if all the straight white men did the same thing about women all the time. We can get that sort of thing anywhere, it's boring, and it reinforces an imbalance in our society rather than counteracting it.

Posted by: Sarah from Chicago | December 10, 2009 3:31 PM

lol Carlie ... I assume you know me tho :)

I haven't been around much, so not, you're not missing where I have been posting ... have moved back home to New Zealand, stopped with being an academic/lecturer/etc, and am moving into political policy analysis/advising work.

It's all very strange after so many years living in the US, not to mention my American accent keeps having me picked as not completely kiwi anymore "so where are you from" ... "er, here". Not to mention the reverse culture-shock, which is throwing me for a loop.

Course, it's almost rather strange that summer just started for me, and it's the holidays ...

But should stop here in order to not thread derail more than I am :)

Posted by: SaintStephen | December 10, 2009 3:51 PM

Wow. Rachel is formidable, indeed. Not to be sexist, but YOU GO, GIRL.

The Liberal Lioness? I'm just awestruck right now.

I don't think I've ever seen Billow Reilly ask his guest if they feel they've been "treated fairly" in his pig sty. Bravo Rachel!

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | December 10, 2009 3:56 PM

"Dick" is as gay as a parade...but he is severely conflicted and a epic disgrace to Bi, hetero and ghey alike.

He is not as straight as he boasts, and I do not mean just sexual orientation, look at the dude he exudes counterfeit politeness and grace, and fails miserably to convince, he is a fake halfwit but a very dangerous one.

Even ter ghays would not want the jerk-off mingling with them, ugly human that he is through and through.
One can only wonder what the story really is behind the 'buy a bride' lookalike in that photo of claimed wife.
That would be no surprise 'no woman of free will' and all that.

He refuses to admit to stoking genocide against Homosexuals and he is hiding behind a dubious, apparently non sexual, according to him in that clip, relationship to promote same.

De dude is a sleazeball and uses his anti-gheydom rhetoric to punish his own obvious self loathing.
Anyone that thought acted and promoted such crass bollocks would be justified in loathing himself....it is the only thing genuine about him.

No evolution there just a cess pit of right wing propaganda and greed for greed sake.
He presumably started to want to curry favour with the religious right wing in the US, got himself in a spot of bother though, ignorance believes his flatulent incontinence.
Now it is getting out of hand.
The fuckhead has single handedly started a pogrom against gays in another country, and has given a few bitter ass wipes in the US pause for thought about a similar campaign...it will not be forgotten.

Posted by: daveau | December 10, 2009 4:11 PM

Bill Dauphin, et al.

I guess I just don't get it, really. I don't see how "I'd do her/him" relevantly enters into any discussion other than one about who you'd do or not. It does seem to be a part of human nature to do that though. People are "totally in love with" a celebrity's public persona and really know nothing about that person. And it's certainly not reciprocated, even assuming a gender/proclivity match. Objectification is especially bad in Rachel's case because she doesn't seem to be remotely interested in trading on her looks as some do. (Thought I was going to say something else, didn't ya?) It was pretty funny, though, whoever said that they would get a sex change so they could be a lesbian.

Posted by: Paul W., OM | December 10, 2009 4:23 PM

I think Bill hit the nail on the head in terms of people using the idea sexual hotness largely as a way of expressing adoration, in much the same way that Maddow herself talks about "crushes" on people she admires.

There is a slippery slope from there.

Sarah T:

Wow, I did not mean to start this kind of shit storm!

Well you blew it. :-)

Back in Comment #10 when I said "If I could chose to be gay, I would try to seduce Rachel Maddow" What I meant was that I was so impressed with her that I would love to have her as a permanent, intimate fixture in my life.

I think that was a pretty good and clear version of what Bill was talking about.

You were saying that Maddow is so intensely generally cool that it would overcome your normally fixed preference (heterosexuality) in that regard.

My followup, where I quoted you and basically said "me too" was pretty lame---a (mostly) straight man saying he'd try to seduce a physically attractive woman just isn't interesting in that way. Lots of straight men would try to seduce her, so so what? It doesn't convey the same overall adoration, and could just mean "what a hottie!"

My bad. I was just trying to play along with the sort-of-joke and express my general admiration, and segue to my real subject, but I made a not-funny sort-of-joke.

I don't mostly mean my sort-of-joke was "not funny" in the sense of being in poor taste, I mostly mean it was uninteresting and therefore not funny; jokes have to have a surprise in them, and there's no surprise there, as there was in what you said.

It just doesn't convey any surprising intensity of general adoration for a straight guy to say he'd try to seduce a physically attractive woman! (Duh, dude!)

In my own defense, I was dumb one-line throwaway and I proceeded to do what I really meant to do---I gave my opinions on her arguments, both pluses and minuses.

Nobody seems to care about that part, which was almost all of what I posted in two posts.

Maybe if I was a hottie people would pay attention. :-)

Posted by: Paul W., OM | December 10, 2009 4:43 PM

Justin,

Lighten up.

I think Bill explained himself pretty well.

I think it's fine if you think it (for the right reasons), but really, why should you let everyone else know that you think a particular professional is hot or not?

It's not really relevant to the discussion,

Yes, it is. I think Bill is right about why that sort of thing is done pretty often around here---often by women or gay men---and why it's usually considered acceptable.

Maybe it isn't or shouldn't be acceptable coming from a straight man praising a gay woman, but please grant his point about how people sometimes try to express general admiration metaphorically or partly-metaphorically by calling someone hot.

Do you object if a woman calls, say, Dawkins hot, amidst praising his intellect and rhetorical vigor, because it's simply irrelevant?

I doubt it. I suspect that in that case you'd recognize that the woman was trying to express strong overall admiration, not just purely physical attraction.

Sometimes guys around here say they "have a man crush on" somebody. (I learned that phrase from seeing that here, several times, and had to look it up to make sure I understood it.)

That's the same idea, but clearer---you're expressing the intensity of your admiration for somebody (like a romantic crush) while saying that it's not actually romantic or sexual.

I think that in the right context, where people are unlikely to take it wrong, it is also okay to say that you have an actual crush on somebody, expressing mostly general admiration, especially for someone's intellect, but mixed with a physical sexual attractiveness component as well.

But for a man to say that about a beautiful woman is problematic---not because it's not actually a reasonable sentiment, but because it's an ambiguous thing to say that could just be mostly sexual admiration, and it reinforces the objectification of women, which there's too much of.

leaving aside all the inherent sexism that women face on a disproportional scale to men.

I don't think that you can leave that aside. As Bill explained, it makes sense to express general admiration as something akin to, or even mixed with, romantic/sexual adoration.

What makes it a bad idea in many contexts is precisely that in our society it's hard to distinguish from simple sexual objectification, and it's not as clear or interesting as when it's about someone of your not-preferred sex, and it reinforces our tendency to objectify women in general.

Posted by: Justin | December 10, 2009 4:55 PM

Paul @ 162:

Lighten up.

No.

I think Bill explained himself pretty well.

I think he did too. However, how often does one in real life have time for long winded explanations for why they said or did a certain thing?

Yes, it is. I think Bill is right about why that sort of thing is done pretty often around here---often by women or gay men---and why it's usually considered acceptable.

I wouldn't say it's acceptable per se, but it's less frowned upon precisely because it's a strike against the institutional sexism that I mentioned at the end of my last post.

Maybe it isn't or shouldn't be acceptable coming from a straight man praising a gay woman, but please grant his point about how people sometimes try to express general admiration metaphorically or partly-metaphorically by calling someone hot.

Sure, people do it, but does that make it right?

Do you object if a woman calls, say, Dawkins hot, amidst praising his intellect and rhetorical vigor, because it's simply irrelevant?

I usually let it slide, again because it's a strike against institutional sexism, but that doesn't mean I cheer for it either. I usually just ignore it. I understand however that if I was a woman and I received comments like that every single day, I would be a bit annoyed.

That's the same idea, but clearer---you're expressing the intensity of your admiration for somebody (like a romantic crush) while saying that it's not actually romantic or sexual.

The difference here is that the preclusion to sexual attraction is RIGHT THERE IN THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM. If however, "man crush" was sexually ambiguous, I don't think people would be using it that often.

I think that in the right context, where people are unlikely to take it wrong, it is also okay to say that you have an actual crush on somebody, expressing mostly general admiration, especially for someone's intellect, but mixed with a physical sexual attractiveness component as well.

In the right context certainly. How do you know what the right context is? Define the proper circumstances that allow such comments to be acceptable.

I don't think that you can leave that aside. As Bill explained, it makes sense to express general admiration as something akin to, or even mixed with, romantic/sexual adoration.

If we're not leaving institutional sexism aside, then you can clearly see how a man referring to a woman in that context while discussing her professional performance is sexist; it's degrading her to merely a thing that provides you pleasure, as opposed to an actual person who has done a great job.

What makes it a bad idea in many contexts is precisely that in our society it's hard to distinguish from simple sexual objectification, and it's not as clear or interesting as when it's about someone of your not-preferred sex, and it reinforces our tendency to objectify women in general.

Exactly, and since people can't tell your intentions without you spelling them out (leaving aside the possibility of insincerity), it would be best if you refrained from such comments for the most part.

Posted by: Josh | December 10, 2009 5:49 PM

@Carlie #143:

"It has nothing to do with which part is the yardstick and which one is the measure, it's that fuckability shouldn't be on either one."

'Which one is the measure' has everything to do with it. I was attacking the LOGICAL CONSTRUCTION as false. Refer to #130. I don't give two shits about Maddow's 'fuckability.' I think it is irrelevant to the original discussion here. HOWEVER, it was a constituent element of a statement made earlier by someone else. I believe that statement to be illogical. I said so. That is what skeptics do.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 10, 2009 7:26 PM

skeptifem,

My love for Rachel Maddow is not about sex, but rather because I find her to be an utterly brilliant, progressive person. She seems to be exactly the kind of person I would like to have a long term relationship with. Unfortunately, for me, there are several barriers to a relationship with her. One, she's already in a relationship. Two, I'm straight. Three, and most significantly, she's a famous journalist, and I have no chance of ever even meeting her.

I do, however, understand your objection, and you are spot on in saying that her femaleness is probably the root cause of the "I wish I could date her" comments. Just for the record, I say similar things about Keith Olbermann, Al Gore, and Al Franken all the time. These are a few of my political crushes.

Posted by: Paul W., OM | December 10, 2009 8:15 PM

What's up with you people? Do you confuse everything you like with sexiness? Like... food? Sunshine? Clean air? Er... Mozart's 40th symphony? I don't get it.

Gosh, I dunno. Of all the many and varied things I like, the ones I'm sexually attracted to are disproportionately animate, specifically mammals, and... lemme think... humans. Yep. Pretty much all humans.

But maybe that's just me.

Posted by: Pyroclasm | December 10, 2009 8:23 PM

I've got to wonder; why is it always gay or straight with these people? Why no love for the bisexuals?

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | December 10, 2009 8:34 PM

David:

What's up with you people? Do you confuse everything you like with sexiness? Like... food? Sunshine? Clean air? Er... Mozart's 40th symphony?

You say that like it's a bad thing! What, clean air doesn't make you hot? I know sunshine, almost all the time, gets me high.

;^)

Pygmy Loris:

I say similar things about Keith Olbermann, Al Gore, and Al Franken all the time. These are a few of my political crushes.

Ah, jeez! For some reason, the rhythm of that sentence reminded me of "My Favorite Things" from The Sound of Music, and now I can't stop trying to write the parody version in my head:

Rachel in glasses,
And Al Gore talks climate.
Franken's not joking,
He's got his assignment.
Olbermann slashes
Through Fox News reports;
These are just some
Of my fav'rite retorts!

ummm... OK... I'll stop now; sorry....

PS: A straight man who knows show tunes: Another stereotype shattered!

Posted by: Aratina Cage | December 10, 2009 10:37 PM

Newfie #139, that photo rocks! Why are so many people gullible enough to eat a steaming pile of hypocrisy?

Posted by: destlund | December 10, 2009 11:03 PM

Scyldemort,

There is no such thing as bisexual Erasure. Those guys are totally gay.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/cttINywmxMR7sgbiHm42pVLDqQ--#2abe1 | December 11, 2009 4:26 AM

Great skewering.

RM: Paul Cameron? Seriously?
RC: Yeah, my bad. I'm taking that out.
RM: Race?? WTF??
RC: Uh...I didn't write that?
RM: So, still loving men?
RC: Technically...no...heh...ahem...nonsequitor.org!
RM: They're going to kill people.
RC: I didn't tell them to kill people, I was just pointing out who deserved to die! I'm the victim!
RM: I think you're scum. Good luck, Dick.
RC: Am I still smiling? I can't feel my face.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 11, 2009 4:57 AM

She's not holding him personally responsible for what's going on in Uganda exactly

He didn't say she is, but a number of people here are, e.g.,

The link between this charlatan Cohen et al. and the legislation in Uganda seems clear and well documented. If they ever got as far as imprisoning or executing someone under this law in Uganda, could those who helped and encouraged it in the US be charged with a crime or sued for damages?

Also, there's a lot of lightly veiled homophobia here -- the way he is being treated here is very much like gays of the past who tried to hide it in order to meet societal expectations. There's a lot to criticize him for, but the Uganda bill and his apparent gender confusion are not among them.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | December 11, 2009 8:20 AM

I feel sorry for the guy's wife. How must it feel to constantly have the message of "I love you honey...because I spent years and years and years forcing myself to!"

Bill, I get what you've said here and elsewhere about how we ought to have a culture in which sexuality isn't any more privileged or taboo than other characteristics, but we currently don't. I don't think it's the kind of thing that can be changed that way by simply trying to use it that way; it's too similar to the current usage to be distinguishable. I think the only way that could happen is to have a total break away from sexuality being bad before a new milieu of it being neutral could develop.

Sarah from Chicago - sorry I was all stalkery weird and shit. :) That's neat that you're back, and you'll kick ass at policy work.

Posted by: destlund | December 11, 2009 10:01 AM

Also, there's a lot of lightly veiled homophobia here -- the way he is being treated here is very much like gays of the past who tried to hide it in order to meet societal expectations. There's a lot to criticize him for, but the Uganda bill and his apparent gender confusion are not among them.

The Uganda bill provides a strong (the strongest?) example of just how dangerous preaching his views can be to people, and... wait... gender confusion? You lost me there.

Posted by: DLC | December 11, 2009 11:57 AM

I like Rachel Maddow.
I don't agree with her on some issues, but nobody's asking me to. One of the things I like about her the most is her brains. Everybody gets one, but she uses hers like a virtuoso. And that's one of the things that make her likable. Further, Ms Maddow's interview style is very much a change of pace from the usual run of talking-head shows. This interview is no exception. She's also interviewed the head of that AstroTurf group that's doing the tea-party anti-healthcare tour. Maddow exposed the guy for the fraud he is, without yelling, name-calling, talking over him or cutting his mic. It was a brilliant job.
PZ is right. Definitely someone to put on the "would love to sit down, have coffee and chew the fat with " list.

Posted by: negentropyeater | December 11, 2009 2:17 PM

#177 Mike Crichton,

I don't think it's fair to blame any part of the Uganda situation on him, any more than it is for the creationists to blame the Holocaust on Darwin. Criticize the idiot for his own actions, not those of other idiots who may or may not be inspired by him.

except that Darwin wasn't alive in the 1930s/1940s.

If he had, I doubt he would have stayed idle with the nazi pseudo science that claimed to be inspired by his writings.

Also, I don' recall that Darwin ever wrote stuff such as "the jews are more likely to be criminals" and other damning claims with zero evidence.

That's all that's being asked from Cohen (and the other twots like him, Rick Warren, Scott Lively, Paul Cameron, members of the US neo-conservative Christian Right ans some of their "think-tanks" : see my post #59) : that they reverse the damage they've done with their nonsense.

Cohen has admitted he rejects a particular paragraph in his own book, well, why doesn't he go and explain that to the Ugandans ? Maddow even suggested to sponsor his plane ticket.

And what about all the other Christian right twots who've "inspired' that crazy bill, why don't they go and explain to the Ugandans that many of their claims are complete nonsense ?

If they really think the Ugandan Anti-gay bill is such a bad idea, why don't they explain why ?

Come on, you know the answer.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | December 11, 2009 2:53 PM

neg:

Darwin wasn't alive in the 1930s/1940s.

If he had, I doubt he would have stayed idle with the nazi pseudo science that claimed to be inspired by his writings.

Also, I don' recall that Darwin ever wrote stuff such as "the jews are more likely to be criminals" and other damning claims with zero evidence.

The Cohen/Darwin analogy is full of even more FAIL than that: Cohen treats homosexuality as an affliction that can be cured¹, if the homosexual wants to be cured. This way of looking at it enables a regime that considers homosexuality evil to treat homosexual people as perpretrators of evil, rather than as victims. We may or may not be able to blame Cohen for the fact that Uganda considers homosexuality evil, but in any case, his assertion is the basis for this shifting of "blame."

For the Cohen is to Uganda as Darwin was to Nazi Germany analogy to be apt, Darwin would've had to claim that Jewishness was curable, and thus that anyone who remained Jewish did so by choice... which, in real life, is parsecs from anything Darwin ever actually said... and, BTW, not what the Nazis believed, either. The link between Cohen's assertions and the Ugandan law is much more direct than even the wildest accusations of Darwin having inspired Hitler.

Further, it's not just a matter of unintended consequences of well-intentioned work: I'm firmly convinced that Cohen is lying about gay conversion for the sake of making profits off the misery of others (note: I'm not suggesting gay people are necessarily miserable, but I am suggesting that only miserable people would subject themselves to — and pay for — Cohen's "treatment"). The Ugandan connection may or may not be unintended, but Cohen's work is the diametric opposite of well-intentioned.

¹ Yes, I heard his blah, blah, blah about how he avoids the word "cure," but I ain't buying any: He knows full well that his model is that of curing an affliction; any pretense to the contrary is just a matter of trying to establish plausible deniability.

Posted by: negentropyeater | December 11, 2009 4:16 PM

Bill,

indeed, the "Cohen is to Uganda as Darwin was to Nazi Germany" analogy is pathetic.

But the "Cohen/Cameron/Lively/Warren are to Uganda as Fischer/von Verschuer/Lenz/Baur were to Nazi Germany analogy would seems more appropriate.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | December 12, 2009 12:40 PM

Strangest Brew@156:

he is a fake halfwit but a very dangerous one.

Then he must be very good at faking it, because he came across to me as a genuine halfwit.

And is it just me, or did he seem to be strangely "happy" with being publicly humiliated? Perhaps like certain trolls, he derives satisfaction rather than shame(or both at the same time?) from a good rhetorical flogging.

Does Smoggy have his contact info yet?

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 12, 2009 1:15 PM

For the Cohen is to Uganda as Darwin was to Nazi Germany analogy to be apt, Darwin would've had to claim that Jewishness was curable

No; you don't understand analogies, which don't assert that everything is in common, only that some relevant things are. What you in effect are saying is that, if someone's work is used to justify genocide, that really is the fault of that person, despite their not endorsing the genocide or its justification, as long as they are making a false claim.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 12, 2009 1:26 PM

There is no excuse for Cohen...he is an imbecile...he deserves all the criticism he gets!

You share the impulse of those who think that criminals in prison deserve to be anally raped.

Posted by: negentropyeater | December 12, 2009 1:55 PM

That's vile nonsense.

Agreed, so I take away what I wrote in post #194.

I stick with what I wrote in #190, and I think it's fair to blame him (and others) for being partly responsible for the Ugandan bill.

Posted by: SC OM | December 12, 2009 3:09 PM

I think wanting to sleep with someone because they appeal to you is normal, no matter what the appeal is.

Yes. That. I think it's tremendous that people find her attractive for (in addition to not being hard on the eyes; but...huh) her intellect, logic, voice, intensity,... I don't mind that people talk about how hot she is - in fact, in this case it's cool; just wish they would talk more about why :).

But:

I do find her sexy, just not an object of sexual desire (I am 60, not dead!). I find lots of men and women sexy without wanting to have sex with them.

...So, what does sexy mean to me? It means I think someone is fascinating. It does not mean I necessarily want to sex with them.

Hmmm. I think this dilutes the word. As I see it, it's a strange set of Venn diagrams, with complex and ambiguous relationships between the "sexy" set and others...

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | December 12, 2009 3:45 PM

truth machine (@198):

No; you don't understand analogies...

Well, there's an extraordinarily broad claim, as gratuitously insulting as it is (if I do say so myself) unfounded.

...which don't assert that everything is in common, only that some relevant things are.

Indeed. But your analysis, far from showing that I don't understand analogies, simply demonstrates that you didn't understand what I was saying was relevant (even though it was pretty well spelled out in the balance of my post):

What you in effect are saying is that, if someone's work is used to justify genocide, that really is the fault of that person, despite their not endorsing the genocide or its justification, as long as they are making a false claim.

No, what I am saying is that theoretical work's degree of responsibility for derived policies follows from how directly the two are related. Cohen's work makes very specific claims about a very specific population of people, and those claims have been fairly directly translated into policy by the Ugandans. IMHO, that makes him responsible to some degree for the existence of that policy (not, BTW, that some degree of responsibility ≠ strict culpability).

There is, I assert, a nontrivial difference between basing an evil policy on directly relevant theoretical assertions, on the one hand, and stretching and distorting essentially unrelated theory to justify an evil policy. For any theorist to stand in the same relation to the Holocaust that Cohen stands to the genocidal Ugandan law (which, as an aside, seems to have been somewhat softened in the wake of international condemnation), that theorist would have had to make specific claims about the Jews (for the most obvious example, though I don't mean to dismiss the other victims of the Holocaust) that would have required only the addition of the Nazis' perception of Jewishness as evil for translation into genocidal policy. (And it's not as if Cohen was blissfully unaware that there were people in the world looking for excuses to persecute gays.)

Which is precisely what my analogy said: The beef I have with Cohen is that his work gave the Ugandans all the philosophical ammunition they needed to get from their a priori position that homosexuality is bad to a legally plausible justification for eliminating (either by imprisonment or death) gay people from their society. Nothing about Darwin's work on evolution bears directly on what the Nazis saw as the "problem" of Jewishness in any even vaguely similar way. The Ugandans made a perfectly reasonable and fairly direct inference from Cohen's work ("reasonable," that is, given their going-in position... a false premise, of course, but the premise they were reasoning from just the same); the Nazis did nothing of the sort WRT Darwin.

BTW, I didn't attribute Cohen's responsibility to the falseness of his claim; I said the craven dishonesty and invidious intentions of his claim (i.e., my specific assertion was that he was lying for the purpose of profiting off of misery) exacerbated his moral guilt. If Cohen's claims were the result of well-intentioned, honest work that was simply wrong, he'd still be responsible (and to the same degree) for the outcomes that work enabled, but his moral guilt would, IMHO, be mitigated.

Finally, it seems to me that there's a rich tradition of scientists worrying about the moral implications arising from practical and political application of their work. Honest scientists worry about it, that is; charlatans like Cohen shrug the question off with facile armwaving.

I can't understand for the life of me why you're defending this guy, even a little bit.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | December 12, 2009 3:58 PM

Bill, if I were you I would simply ignore truth machine. He seems to take great pleasure in gratuitously insulting and attacking anyone who dares disagree with him. His MO is to provoke pointless arguments about minor and pedantic points, simply so he has an opportunity to fling invective at others and question their intelligence.

I am well aware that one of the founding principles of Pharyngula is "it's better to be right than to be nice". But truth machine takes this too far. He doesn't just attack trolls; he attacks everyone.

Posted by: negentropyeater | December 12, 2009 4:20 PM

No; you don't understand analogies, which don't assert that everything is in common, only that some relevant things are.

So, you find more relevant things in common in the Cohen/Darwin analogy than in the Cohen/Fischer one ?

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | December 12, 2009 5:18 PM

Walton:

Bill, if I were you I would simply ignore truth machine....

I am well aware that one of the founding principles of Pharyngula is "it's better to be right than to be nice". But truth machine takes this too far. He doesn't just attack trolls; he attacks everyone.

Nah. By not ignoring him, I was able to sharpen my own argument, and further explain the case I was making to others who potentially might have misunderstood it in the same way TM did.

True, I could've done without the gratuitous "you simpleton!" he employed as his opening salvo, but I'm a big boy; it's all good.

Posted by: destlund | December 12, 2009 5:58 PM

As a Christian attorney and international human rights advocate who has worked closely with Uganda’s pro-family movement, I have a special interest in this issue.

In my view, homosexuality (indeed all sex outside of marriage) should be actively discouraged by society

but only as aggressively as necessary to prevent the mainstreaming of alternative sexual lifestyles, and with concern for the preservation of the liberties of those who desire to keep their personal lifestyles private.

Marriage-based culture served humanity very favorably during the centuries when homosexuality was disapproved but tolerated as a sub-culture in America, England and elsewhere.

It has obviously not fared well in the decades since the so-called sexual revolution kicked open Pandora’s Box and unleashed both rampant heterosexual promiscuity and “Gay Pride“ on the world.

Posted by: destlund | December 12, 2009 6:06 PM

Oh shoot. I accidentally posted while I was working on it, but I thought I hit "back" before teh intertubes did their job. PZ if you're watching, would you delete the draft please?

Posted by: negentropyeater | December 12, 2009 6:39 PM

yep, Scott Lively is a real piece of work :

modern Ugandans are very unhappy that homosexual political activists from Europe and the United States are working aggressively to re-homosexualize their nation. Ugandan citizens report a growing number of foreign homosexual men coming to their country to turn desperately poor young men from the slums into their personal houseboys, and that some girls in public schools have being paid to recruit others into lesbianism.

"to re-homosexualize" ?

Choice selection of Lively-quotes (note the Christian Love):

"The gay movement is an evil institution that’s goal is to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity in which there’s no restrictions on sexual conduct except the principle of mutual choice."

"[homosexuality and pedophilia] They are equated. They are equated because the very same arguments you can make for homosexuality you can apply to pedophilia in many ways, not in every way but in many ways…clearly it’s not the way it ought to be. It’s wrong and it should be discouraged."

"There is a norm, there is a model of the way things are supposed to be. When you find yourself outside of that, when you find yourself not fitting the way things are designed to be, it’s a simple matter of just learning how you ought to be and working to restore the way things are supposed to be."

"Nobody has been able to stop them [homosexuals] so far, I’m hoping Uganda can."

Posted by: SC OM | December 12, 2009 8:01 PM

Yeah, "here and elswhere." Between this thread, the porn thread, and a couple other recent threads on related topics, I begin to fear that I've reduced myself, in the eyes of this community, to a mustachioed, turtleneck-wearing pencil drawing straight out of an old copy of The Joy of Sex.

:D. I'm sure that's not true. I think part of the complexity is that some people are talking (unconsciously at times) about sex or sexual desire as somehow inherently immoral, while others are talking about the moral aspects of the intersection between sex and power relationships. There's so much overlap amongst all of the camps that these discussions can get very confusing.

***

Hitler's Scientists is a good read. It's not a matter of responsible or not responsible, but of determining personal moral responsibility in specific cases. It's extremely important to do so.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | December 12, 2009 11:21 PM

Urkk! "...country's...," not "...countries...."

All I can say is it's late, and I've had a long day.

Posted by: Paul W., OM | December 13, 2009 11:30 AM

Bill,

Texas has many, many flaws, but tonight my old stomping ground of Houston helped prove that Texas is still a few steps ahead of Uganda, by electing a lesbian as Mayor of the countries 4th largest city!

Yep. First lesbian mayor of a major U.S. city, and the largest city in the U.S. with an out gay mayor.

Yee haw. Pretty damned cool for Texas---not even Austin, that wouldn't be a big surprise, but Houston that did this. (I guess we're not all a bunch of religious right rednecks down here.)

Kind of cool for Texas to be #1 in something good, for a change.

I'm an old Houston boy, too. (Montrose is the gay neighborhood I referred to earlier, where I lived and worked for years. Wish I could be there for the celebrations.)

I remember the bad old days when the corrupt cops used to do atrocious things (or atrociously fail to do things), and nobody'd make a big deal about it, because who gives a damn about a bunch of fags?

Wow, times have really changed. I've always been a gay rights advocate, but until a few years ago, I never thought I'd see this in my lifetime. Just wow.

Let's hope atheists can shift the Overton Window so much...

Posted by: Paul W., OM | December 13, 2009 12:41 PM

I'm kind of amazed that Parker won, in a runoff with low turnout. (Runoffs usually have low turnout.) Only a bit more than 1 in 8 eligible voters voted.

(Probably because Parker and her opponent are both democrats and not very far apart on most actual issues. So it was the black straight guy vs. the white lesbian, and most people just didn't care much.)

Normally, a gay candidate is very vulnerable in a low-turnout election, because the right wing religious kooks will get out the vote and make sure they lose.

They tried, and they failed.

She is also not a shrinking violet almost-closeted lesbian who knows her place. She got her start in politics as a gay activist, and has always been out and proud. She's the kind of gay person who the right like to stereotype as actively promoting their sinful lifestyle and recruiting your children.

She didn't make her sexuality an issue in the race, but she's a longtime destroyer-of-the-family-and-thefabric-of-society. (With a mate of 19 years and three kids.)

Interestingly, she had the endorsement of the police union. I guess HPD has changed considerably since I lived there.