Pharyngula

Posted by: recovering catholic | July 18, 2010 5:15 PM

I second this comment:

"I object to the characterization of PZ Myers as “young.”"

Posted by: snurp | July 18, 2010 5:19 PM

Erg, when I got to the point where I realized he didn't know/hadn't contacted the women in the post I was at least hoping it would be photos of people who reasonably qualified as public figures (not a lot less skeevy, but at least they might be expecting people to use and comment on photos of them - PZ for example) rather than complete strangers who have no idea someone's stuck them up in a cheesecake post. Supercreep.

Posted by: Nepenthe | July 18, 2010 5:20 PM

He's a super creep, super creep. He's super creepy, yeah.

He's a very skeezy guy, the kind you don't take home to mother...

You know how it goes.

Posted by: ERV | July 18, 2010 5:26 PM

*rolleyes*

This is a light-hearted stupid list on the internet.

There have been billions of these lists before.

There will be billions in the future.

If you are so offended and 'creeped out' by this, I strongly suggest you disconnect your computer from the internet and never leave the house, cause reality only goes downhill from here.

Posted by: ERV | July 18, 2010 5:34 PM

Its called perspective.

When you freak out about 'OHHHHH SOMEONE MADE A LIST!', it makes it harder for ME as a WOMAN to deal with real gender/sexism issues because its hard to be taken seriously when a bunch of dipshits are out there yelling 'WOLF!! SEXISM!!!'

Posted by: snurp | July 18, 2010 5:36 PM

And your definition of "real" sexism is authoritative. Got it.

Posted by: MrNaglfar | July 18, 2010 5:38 PM

I object to this list of sexy scientists because several of those are at 6s at best. In fact, I'd only say I'm pretty sure that about four of them are "sexy".

Posted by: ERV | July 18, 2010 5:40 PM

I object to this list of sexy scientists because several of those are at 6s at best. In fact, I'd only say I'm pretty sure that about four of them are "sexy".
And THATS just SO FEMINIST.

When did your commentors go retarded, PZ? Christ on a stick Im not leaving my blog anymore.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 18, 2010 5:45 PM

ERV, that's just an asshole or some one being sarcastic. I thought you were hip to how deep the rabbit hole of the internet went?

I guess you need to toughen up honey!

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 18, 2010 5:51 PM

When you freak out about 'OHHHHH SOMEONE MADE A LIST!', it makes it harder for ME as a WOMAN to deal with real gender/sexism issues because its hard to be taken seriously when a bunch of dipshits are out there yelling 'WOLF!! SEXISM!!!'

I had to read that twice, before realizing she's dead on right.

I agree that those responding to this bit of idiocy by retreating to their fainting couches only makes the issue of gender bias itself appear trivial to a lot of people.

It could be much like how extreme environmentalists or animal rightists make it triply difficult when one really wants to address serious conservation issues or animal husbandry issues.

It causes people to associate those who really want to work on gender bias issues with reactionaries, and allow them to be entirely dismissive.

Posted by: grumpgirl | July 18, 2010 5:53 PM

ERV, I don't see how PZ having posted about the Salon piece on Dawkins makes his stance on this hypocritical? In that piece, the author is effusing about Dawkins' sex appeal...as stems from his intelligence. Much is made of his capacity for reason, his endeavors to find truth, etc.

On the other hand, the Common Sense Atheism post is just a list of photos. No accompanying text about the womens' intelligence, or what specific mental prowess makes them sexy.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 18, 2010 5:58 PM

ERV-

Yes, the fact that it's everywhere somehow makes problems either better or otherwise less worthy of comment than if they were more uncommon...

I don't know about you, but the fact that things like this are so comment are important to point out because it's the swamp we have to wade through every day. This is the baseline irritant we all have to "shrug" off and treat as normal and that not only affects us and how we view ourselves (on average), but also it's a prime example about how in-grained sexism is into the baseline of our culture.

What women are expected to "shrug off" that men never have to deal with. And like rape, abusive relationships, being taken less seriously than men, being paid less than men, being assumed to be dumber than men, constantly being sexualized in any space they occupy, putting up with stalking, and etc, etc... the commonality of it is the worst aspect. At least something uncommon is noted upon when it occurs, acknowledged even by those blinded by their own privilege as having occurred.

But frog in the water style, things that are ubiquitous almost become not worth it to comment on as evidenced by your outburst.

And that would be exactly why it is so important to comment on them.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 18, 2010 6:00 PM

No, ten scientists I'd like to fuck is hardly cute.It's a coffee table book.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 18, 2010 6:02 PM

Damn blockquote fail! What the hell is happening to me these days?

That should read:

No, ten scientists I'd like to fuck is hardly cute.

It's a coffee table book.

-------

But now the joke is ruined. All the humor has bee sucked from it. All its original atoms have been replaced by unfunny mineral atoms.

I'm obviously not fit for the internet today.

Posted by: JBabs073 | July 18, 2010 6:03 PM

I'm going to have to mostly agree with ERV here. I was a little surprised to see PZ make such a lame-ass post on his blog. What's this drivel about men not knowing about what makes a women sexy? ESPECIALLY coming from a fine Darwinian? PZ, I know you like to be progressive and whatnot, but seriously, there's a line to be crossed between trying to be considerate and denying yourself as a man. This seems like a pretty harmless list made by someone who just happened to feel like mixing his love for both science and (in his own opinion) beautiful women.

Plus as ERV stated, you didn't seem to gloss pretty lightly over lists with male emphasis, but make some pretty weak post deploring the making of a list of women. Tsk, tsk.

On a COMPLETELY different note, when is your book finally going to come out?

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 18, 2010 6:06 PM

Ichthyic @20

Exactly, because that...has...been...exactly...what...hap...

No wait, that wasn't at all what happened.

What happened is what has always happened. Person A points out that X action which is less bad than the extreme of -ism Y still sucks. Person B calls it "extremism" and uses it as an excuse to dismiss all those who combat -ism Y because Action X is less than the worst of -ism Y. Furthermore, Person A and all people like Person A are asked to stop talking about Action X or its underlying issue X as long as there are worse actions in -ism Y, even if Action X is part of what builds the culture that allows the extremes of -ism Y to occur.

Of course the next time an action of the extreme of -ism Y occurs, Person B will immediately call it non-existant or a misunderstanding or dismissible because "you know those Person As and their constant labeling of things as -ism Y, it's like they are looking for -ism Y."

And that's pretty much what happens all the time.

And no, it doesn't become less annoying the more times I hear someone try and "give advice" of "well, if you just shut up more, we'd listen to you, honestly".

Yeah, pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Posted by: JBabs073 | July 18, 2010 6:08 PM

And as people can probably guess, I meant **woman and **did seem to gloss.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 18, 2010 6:11 PM

I must admit that I also find the idea of this list a bit disconcerting.

On the one hand, the idea that 'sexiness' and intellect are not wholly incompatible is fine. All too often society presents women with a choice of being considered 'attractive' or being considered 'brainy' (as male-dominated popular culture constructs these concepts).

Unfortunately, the fact remains that this list clearly priviliges a narrow aesthetic of physical attractiveness above any intellectual qualifications. The message seems to be:-

"Look, 'hot' women! And, for added novelty value, they are smart too! Who would have thought it possible!"

The very fact that this bloke feels the need to 'hang a lantern' on the existence of women who are of an intellectual bent that he also finds attractive makes me suspicious of the motivation behind this list.

Far from undermining the idea that there is a dichotomy between physical attractiveness and intellect, or better still pointing out the unimportance of relative concepts of physical attractiveness when set against intellectual prowess (or best of all pointing out that intellectual ability can in-and-of-itself be attractive without a physical parameter based caveat), this list depicts a woman's worth as being vested in her physical appearance and then goes on to highlight such women who also possess well developed mental faculties as oddities. Intellectual 'hotties' as curios to titilate.

This may not be 'a-woman's-place-is-in-the-home' style unreconstructed sexism, but it is hardly to be applauded.

Then we get to the fact that this guy is essentially publically lusting after women without their consent. It is the online equivilent of wolf-whistling a woman as she passes in the street, and it is every bit as offensive.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 18, 2010 6:16 PM

And that's pretty much what happens all the time.

no, I really think you are missing her point.

Posted by: llewelly | July 18, 2010 6:17 PM

JBabs073 | July 18, 2010 6:03 PM:

ESPECIALLY coming from a fine Darwinian?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 18, 2010 6:21 PM

Also - making a comment on a blog post that says "eww, sexist" isn't exactly being an EXTREMIST who is EXTREMELY UPSET about such EXTREME sexism and behaving in EXTREME MILITANT WAYS. Srsly. It's a blog post. And comments.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 18, 2010 6:22 PM

Ichthyic @35

Yes...so people complaining about the fact that the post is basically a Top 15 Scientists I'd Like to Fuck list that was all women except for PZ, included zero notations of academic aspects that would make them interesting, was entirely focused on female fuckability, a narrow range of female attractiveness (mostly blonde, mostly white), is topped with a cheesecake softcore porn picture, was taken without permission, and oh yeah-

Is a nice illustration that regardless of your contributions intellectually, women tend to be regarded by society on their fuckability first which extends to successful women being told they are worthless if they don't reproduce, being judged on their physical attractiveness in hiring, firing, and promotions, and being taken less seriously if they are perceived as attractive females (because they must have slept into their position).

Are apparently examples of people "collapsing into the fainting couch" over nothing?

Yeah, that hole, do you still want to keep digging?

Cause there was nothing in there even remotely like a penis holocaust that would prompt such a hearty condemnation.

Especially as as women they might have some personal experience about how being judged on their physical attractiveness before intellectual output has directly negatively affected their career pursuits and the way their work was viewed in male-dominated audiences.

Also,

If you enjoy looking at these women, that’s fine. But posting this shows a disrespect to your female readership by exhibiting willful blindness to the hardships they face in being taken seriously in academic pursuits. You could have gotten around that by being more inclusive.

This is the mildest most even-handed rebuke I've seen on the subject and is absolutely right. Yeah, it does scream, we only want heterosexual men. Yeah, it does scream that women are their physical appearance (as measured by their approximation to a MAXIM model) and will be regarded by such first.

And yeah, as noted on the Woman Problem thread, that sort of thing does decrease women's feelings that they'll be taken seriously as members of the atheist and scientific community. Especially when they compare it to actual harassment they may have suffered being a woman in the sciences or atheism or just as a woman in their day-to-day life.

It is openly insensitive and brain-dead to its own privilege and was nothing other than a man publishing his google image wank to female scientists he finds hot.

Posted by: history punk | July 18, 2010 6:24 PM

Then we get to the fact that this guy is essentially publically lusting after women without their consent

To lust publically, does a man or woman need express written consent, like MLB demands, or is implied oral consent acceptable? What are the rules regarding private lusting? Is my boyfriend/girlfriend allowed to give a blanket consent or do I have to request permission all the time?

Also, what are the penalties for unlicensed lusting? I work in an American high school and believe me, nobody there has even thought to acquire permission to lust there.

Finally, if I want to lust for Edward or Jacob, who gives me permission to do so?

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkt6Nfb5ZW2CGtg6XZkjdIvayuJiC-CFIE | July 18, 2010 6:29 PM

It's a list of strangers you'd like to fuck

I call my list "the phonebook".

That's creepy.

Using paper-based contacts, I mean. (Ewww)

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 6:31 PM

Hi everyone. I'm the author of '15 Sexy Scientists.'

I did intend it as a light-hearted, fun way to celebrate some beautiful scientists (and no, I'm not going to apologize for that) and remind people that yes, women are doing science, too.

I object to a few things in P.Z.'s post. First, he wrote that "The worst possible way to handle this is to search the internet for photos of women scientists and make superficial decisions about who the male eye would find sexy."

But that's not what I did.

I searched the internet for photos of female scientists and took note of who I found to be sexy, not who men should find sexy. Those who say my list is prescriptive, please read it again: You're beating a strawman.

P.Z. also says I should have "found something a little more interesting than appearances to explain why they're sexy."

I just plain disagree. Appearances are, to great degree, what I find sexy. (But so is brains, which is why I picked scientists.) In any case, I do lots of posts praising people for their brains. Strangely, I never get any complaints about those, saying that I've objectified these people as intellectual objects while ignoring their other types of value as human beings.

Look here: I agree that women are horribly oppressed. Gender equality has not been achieved, even in the most progressive countries. But as ERV (who appeared without her permission on my list of sexy scientists) said, when you cry "Sexism!" at a fun, lighthearted post about sexy scientists, then you're muddling the real problems of sexism faced by women today.

At least, that's my response right now. I'm writing an entire series trying to work out whether or not my posting that list was sexist. One of those posts gives a long list of why I'm probably wrong. The thing is, I've got to here good arguments for why I'm wrong, and that takes a lot of philosophical 'clearing of the underbrush' to clarify what good arguments can be made in such a nuanced topic.

It's quite plausible to me that I'm sexist, for reasons I give in the above-linked post. And I need some good 'consciousness raising' just like everybody else. But I need it in the form of good arguments, not emotional "yuck" reactions followed by lost of invented post-hoc reasoning to support those "yuck" reactions.

Also, I think much of the disagreement has to do with the fact that in my own circles, 'sexy' is a fun, harmless word used to describe women, men, guitars, Apple products, and well-made fruit juice blenders. For those who attach an Evangelical significance to the term, then yeah, I suppose I can understand what's offensive to such people about a list with the word 'sexy' in it. I didn't put the list up so I could sit there all day and ogle these women. In fact, I don't think I've looked at the pictures since I made the original post. But that's what some people think the purpose of the list is, and I suspect it's because we use the word 'sexy' differently.

BTW, if you want posts with richer content, pick almost any post on my blog at random and you'll generally find heavier, more philosophically precise writing than the average post at Pharyngula - not to knock P.Z., of course, it's just that we use our blogs in slightly different ways and for slightly different audiences.

Obviously, P.Z. has made the superior choice, as my site will never be as popular as his!

Okay, that's all for now.

Cheers,

Luke
Common Sense Atheism

Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED | July 18, 2010 6:32 PM

Oh... wait.

Are you THE Deusexnihilum? The Youtube dude who has me in stiches every video?

Posted by: DeusExNihilum | July 18, 2010 6:33 PM

Apologies I meant - I really doubt that (were the genders reversed) anybody would of given two shits if it were men getting "Objectified" without permission.

Stupid mistake, i know.

Posted by: Dania | July 18, 2010 6:34 PM

Cerberus,

and was nothing other than a man publishing his google image wank to female scientists he finds hot.

I agree, but I don't think what's going on here is a guy thinking "oh, well, let me make a list of sexy scientists that will only include women because everyone knows women should be mainly judged by their looks". Seems more like "hm, so here's a list of scientists who look sexy to me, a heterosexual guy".

I rather think this list is pretty much pointless instead of sexist.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 18, 2010 6:35 PM

I really doubt that (were the genders reversed) anybody would of given two shits if it were men getting "Objectified" without permission. Stupid mistake, i know.

Reverse sexism. Look a lot of these arguments would make sense if there was no sexism in the first place.

But the reality is sexism is real. Sorry. It just is.

Saying that it wouldn't be the same for men is kind of dumb in light of that.

Posted by: DeusExNihilum | July 18, 2010 6:37 PM

@52 - Kieranfoy

Unless there is some other Youtuber under the name "DeusExNihilum" then yes, guilty as charged.

And, the pessimist I am, I am assuming that you'll be unsubscribing because it turns out i'm such a horrible person for not finding this sexist?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 18, 2010 6:41 PM

I agree, but I don't think what's going on here is a guy thinking "oh, well, let me make a list of sexy scientists that will only include women because everyone knows women should be mainly judged by their looks". Seems more like "hm, so here's a list of scientists who look sexy to me, a heterosexual guy".

I doubt very seriously the intent was malicious. In fact I'm sure it isn't.

It's still obnoxious though. He's free to post whatever he wants on his blog.

I'm also free to say what I think of it. Especially on another blog.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 18, 2010 6:43 PM

Their company has a running list of the fuckable females on their staff.

not academia, just noting.

again, I can only report on what I have observed in academia, which is where ERV is struggling to make a career for herself currently.

It's why I find her specific concerns worthy of discussion.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 18, 2010 6:45 PM

when you cry "Sexism!" at a fun, lighthearted post about sexy scientists, then you're muddling the real problems of sexism faced by women today.

Right. Because the real terrible problems of Sexism™ have absolutely nothing to do with presenting women as objects in a lighthearted "fun" way. There's nothing at all about a culture that treats women as objects to be rated on fuckability, and stomps down anyone who dares to complain about it, that contributes to men really treating women as objects and hurting them when they fail to properly comply. Come on, the real problems of Sexism™ are serious, and spending 5 minutes writing a blog post about anything that is other than true serious Sexism™ is hurting the cause. Jeez. It's not like men (and women) are raised to think of women that way just for fun and then take it to the next level or anything. No, real, true Sexism™ only happens in a vacuum totally removed from all those silly jokes about how women are only good for fucking.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 18, 2010 6:46 PM

Oh, and then there is this defense, which is a pretty by the numbers, "I'm privileged and refuse to examine my privilege" (for progressive men) type post which includes "radical feminists refuse to accept gender essentialism", "feminists let ideology get in the way of facts", "i'll change my mind if anyone proves me wrong, I'll ignore all posts on how perceiving fuckability affects how seriously a woman's message is taken as an intellectual equal", and "I write lists about which women I find fuckable, because I'm so into equality and besides I have other posts where I'm not a skeeze".

I see the same over-privileged blather graces us above.

What might be illuminating is the double-standard. Do we see male fuckability lists especially by women as often as female fuckability lists especially by men? What are the standards of dress in the two types of lists? What are the reactions from men to such lists or shirtless men in general?

I've heard a large number of responses to "artful" nude male shots or shirtless men in movies and pictures from men which are essentially "ew!". Not just, ew, that's not for me, but EW! Ew! as in it is offensive to even have to look at this, like it is turning me gay just being here, ew! like it is a miasma come to destroy them, something which should never be seen by "normal society".

Now, think about cheesecake of women. Do you remember the last day in your life when you didn't see any? Not in advertisements on the web or on the street? Not in the magazines, or magazine covers? Not in the advertisements on TV? When you went an entire day without seeing an airbrushed "hot" woman in her underwear?

Most of the movies as well have the women in various stages of undress or otherwise bending over to see their cleavage. Most comedies have at least one joke centered around "that girl is so hot and fuckable". Most dramas have a sex scene exposing the whole of the woman's back obscuring most of the male body.

Etc, etc...

Women as fuckable, as objectified fantasy is normal.

Men as fuckable, as objectified fantasy is abnormal.

Not that I want to see men objectified, but it leads quite naturally to a society that views men as "serious" and women as sex objects.

I'll let Linkara give the last word on this.

Posted by: Enzo Canuzzi | July 18, 2010 6:50 PM

I want a list of best scientific music groups ;) for example like these from CERN:
LHC Rap,
Bug Collider

Posted by: DeusExNihilum | July 18, 2010 6:53 PM

Reverse sexism. Look a lot of these arguments would make sense if there was no sexism in the first place.

But the reality is sexism is real. Sorry. It just is.

Saying that it wouldn't be the same for men is kind of dumb in light of that.

Yes, I know sexism is real, but I don't think there's any sexism in the list. So i find the charges of sexism to be trumped up and exaggerative.

Also, it is simply reality that Sexism towards women is taken much more seriously, is opposed more virulently and garners more attention than sexism towards men. If this exact situation arose, except the pictures were of men, I highly doubt that the response would be anywhere near equivalent. Not even close.

As ERV pointed out there have been similar lists, except that the blogger was female and the subjects were men, where no one at all played the sexism card. Hell, in the blog post referenced in ERV's original link, all the comments are Brimming with objectification. Damn near everyone is a superficial judgement of the male subjects presented.

Did anyone cry "Sexist!", "How dare you objectify men!", "What about them as a person?!"? No.

How about the comments here at Pharyngula? Did anyone in THIS comment section cry foul? NOPE. What a surprise. Ironically, however, Comment #8 in the first link actually asked "What? No outrage at the objectification of these men?". Even when it was pointed out, nobody cared.

So Really, as it turns out, No one does give two shits when it is men, my original point remains.

Posted by: Andrew G. | July 18, 2010 6:54 PM

BTW, if you want posts with richer content, pick almost any post on my blog at random and you'll generally find heavier, more philosophically precise writing than the average post at Pharyngula - not to knock P.Z., of course, it's just that we use our blogs in slightly different ways and for slightly different audiences.

Obviously, P.Z. has made the superior choice, as my site will never be as popular as his!

The fact that your site is doing something that reduces my browser to the speed of an arthritic snail might have something to do with that.

Now, I admit to the fact that my browser is possibly a bit antiquated, but I've never seen any other site, blog or otherwise, which has the same effect. So it really doesn't matter to me how philosophically precise your writing is.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | July 18, 2010 6:58 PM

What is it the Brits say? PHWOARRRRR!!! PZ was able to tame a ceratops? Awesome!

Posted by: subbie | July 18, 2010 6:58 PM

@67

You answered your own question.

Wow, I am talented. I answered my own question without even asking a question. Go me!

And - I'll put it out there - there's nothing wrong with judging people based on their appearance, whether you're a guy or a girl judging guys or girls.

Well, if you meant to say that there's nothing wrong with pointing out that you think certain people are attractive, that's exactly what I said in the post you're responding to. If, instead, you meant to say that there's nothing wrong with judging someone as person based on what they look like, (which is what it actually sounds like you are saying) then you're a neanderthal who has no business whatsoever commenting on how far someone else's head is up their ass.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 18, 2010 7:00 PM

So is this where we talk about foreskins?

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 7:01 PM

Cerberus,

You have grossly misrepresented my actual words. You represented me like this:

"I'm privileged and refuse to examine my privilege" (for progressive men) type post which includes "radical feminists refuse to accept gender essentialism", "feminists let ideology get in the way of facts", "i'll change my mind if anyone proves me wrong, I'll ignore all posts on how perceiving fuckability affects how seriously a woman's message is taken as an intellectual equal", and "I write lists about which women I find fuckable, because I'm so into equality and besides I have other posts where I'm not a skeeze".

First, I acknowledge in those very posts my own privilege, and am spending an entire post series examining my own privilege in a lengthy series on sexism which includes the reading of dense philosophical articles by feminist philosophers and repeatedly acknowledging how likely it is that I'm wrong.

Second, I deny gender essentialism. What I said was that certain radical feminists denied obvious biological and neurological differences between men and women, but "this was mostly a 70s thing, as far as I can tell." Which to say, I specifically deny that this view is normal of feminists.

Third, I do not ignore posts showing how viewing women sexually harms them. Instead, I spent hours considering and trying to strengthen such comments being made by my critics, and am now seeking out exactly those kinds of arguments in the works of leading feminist philosophers like Martha Nussbaum.

Finally, yes I write lists about women I find 'sexy', but please take note of the multiple times in this thread I've pointed out that to me the word 'sexy' does not have a drooling lusty connotation, but rather is a word I also apply to Apple products and guitars and well-designed blenders.

What's going on here is a clear example of you having an emotional reaction to something, and then inventing shit and putting it in my mouth so that you can pat yourself on the back for having the correct emotional reaction. When you want to engage the positions and arguments I actually defend, let me know. But I suspect you prefer to grossly misrepresent me instead, because that makes you feel good.

Posted by: DeusExNihilum | July 18, 2010 7:04 PM

Yep. I know. The POOR MENZ.

Actually, As i've already said, I'm not advocating "YOU SHOULD ALL BE THIS UPSET ABOUT THE MEN LISTS!". I think that people should be as Unconcerned with the women lists as they are with the Men.

But Some people just can't get through the day if they're not offended by SOMETHING, no matter how trivial it is or how exaggerated they have to make it...

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 7:05 PM

Cerberus,

The feminism 101 page is good, though, so thanks for that.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 7:09 PM

Cerberus,

Where am I bashing feminists? I said in my series that feminism is just "obviously" correct to me. I'm engaging an 'intramural' debate, as it were, within the feminist community, about the rightness or wrongness of posting a list of sexy scientists. This is something on which feminists disagree, and a question I'm still trying to clarify by investing lots of my free time reading feminist literature. So stop acting like I'm some creepy uncaring douche. I care about this stuff.

Posted by: snurp | July 18, 2010 7:09 PM

Wow this got long fast.

lukeprog@82

Apple products and guitars and well-designed blenders

Well I feel better. Also, I didn't notice you addressing the consent aspect for those appearing on the list who aren't actually models, or the possible impression if their names are googled when they're seeking their next job and the first result involves their sexy scientist-hood. Did you speak to either of those problems in other locations and if so would you mind pointing that out to me?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 18, 2010 7:11 PM

You know what I don't get? Why there aren't very many women in the atheist movement. I wonder if we'll ever be able to figure out why.

Posted by: MrNaglfar | July 18, 2010 7:12 PM

@79

Yes, it is.

That's an admission that sexism isn't really on the forefront of your mind, just sexism directed towards women, since sexism directed towards men isn't important. As it seems to be among several of the other commenters: 75 and 77 come to mind.

I'd also disagree that it's more commonly directed towards women, but I'm sure you just pulled that statement of fact right out of your ass.

Regardless of its frequency, that's a very sexist stance to take. There's the ultimate irony.

And since it's been mentioned here, it's worth pointing out there is no such thing as reverse sexism. Sexism directed towards men is not "reverse sexism"; it's just "sexism". If anyone really cares about sexism, they wouldn't be trying to treat the issue differently or call it something else when it happens to one sex or the other.

Posted by: Zadius | July 18, 2010 7:12 PM

Oh, please. What the fuck is wrong with finding someone attractive for no other reason than their appearance?

Because testosterone is sexist. Duh.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 18, 2010 7:15 PM

Furcas
Nothing wrong with thinking it. Might be something wrong with publicly disseminating it on a public forum without consent, though.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 18, 2010 7:19 PM

In case my last comment is unclear: there are men that I find sexually attractive as a visceral response. I find nothing wrong with leaving it there.

And that's important: leaving it there, not imposing my attraction on them without their consent.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 18, 2010 7:23 PM

And that's important: leaving it there, not imposing my attraction on them without their consent.

Silly Jules! Of course that's important, because you're a girl. MEN are supposed to be able to tell everyone their opinions on everything at all times, because it's so important for everyone else to know what they think.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 18, 2010 7:26 PM

I should note here that I do actually greatly, immensely appreciate lukeprog reaching out and trying to learn more.

Few get even that far and it's much appreciated.

And we've all faceplanted on privilege before. If it makes you feel better, remind me to tell you the story about how I delayed actually addressing my gender dissonance for years owing to internalized transphobia.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 18, 2010 7:28 PM

Yeah, not only do I echo Cerberus in general (only often much less coherently!) I totally agree that lukeprog isn't coming off as an ass, himself.

I still think it's valid to point out the problems with the list, and at least for some people what they may reinforce.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 18, 2010 7:33 PM

Is it wrong to post people to a list and praise them for something you like about them - namely that they are attractive and scientific? That seems implausible.

Do you actually like them or is "scientist" just another fetish for you?

It's hard to tell.

Lots of people like sexy nurses, for instance. But that's no reason to pull the employee profiles of a bunch of nurses and post them on your blog as "sexy nurses" is it?

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 7:35 PM

Cerberus,

You keep saying I advocate objective standards of sexiness. Where are you getting that from? I deny it.

BTW, my views of what is visually attractive in a woman is biologically standard. A taste for a 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio is not a cultural product. It is a cultural universal. Same goes for large tits and shiny hair. I would hope a reader of P.Z. would respect the science, here. None of that justifies misogyny, or even my post about sexy scientists, but it does debunk the notion that these preferences are purely cultural in origin. If we're going to debate things, we need to debate about the real world.

Also, what does male privilege have to do with any of this? Do women not have the privilege of being attracted to what they are attracted to? There is lots of genuine male privilege in the real world, but being attracted to certain types of people is not among it. Women have the privilege of fawning over certain types of men, too.

I have already explained why my list is not a 'fap' list. One of my earliest critics here, snurp, understands this now, and our discussion is making progress. If you keep misrepresenting me, our progress will be impeded.

Posted by: MrNaglfar | July 18, 2010 7:37 PM

@104
Women get judged more on their appearance. They have to fight harder to earn recognition as serious academics, and this kind of trivialization makes that task harder. We need to level the playing field, not reinforce the obstacles.

Translation: We need some people to treat people differently based on their gender to make up for the fact that they are treated differently because of their gender by other people.

That is sexism. Plain and simple. Maybe it's benevolent sexism, but I fail to see how that's better.

When men are listed on these kinds of light, humorous lists, we can smirk and laugh and be a bit flattered. It's not going to hurt us...we also know that it'll be dismissed and not be held against us in reviews of our work.

Really? Are you joking? Do you honestly believe that anyone who is an actual sexist is going to treat people differently hinging whether or not these lists exist?

Stop making excuses for the blindness of your own sexist behavior when you're trying to criticize someone else because you feel they display sexism (especially when they're doing nothing of the sort).

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 18, 2010 7:40 PM

Ol'Greg @ 51;

And don't you know if you act offended by it, you're the one who doesn't know how to take a compliment!

Very good point. One of the more insidious forms of sexism is the one that manifests as;

"Jeez! I was trying to give you a compliment! What is wrong with you? You on the rag or something? Or are you just not into guys?" *cue pervy, far way look caused by flashback to favourite lesbian porn scene*

Rendering a woman down to nothing more than her 'vital statistics' is a very pervasive and harmful form of sexism that often goes unnoticed and unchallenged in our culture.

history punk @ 46;

To lust publically, does a man or woman need express written consent, like MLB demands, or is implied oral consent acceptable? What are the rules regarding private lusting? Is my boyfriend/girlfriend allowed to give a blanket consent or do I have to request permission all the time?

I do not think that a culture that endorses the public sexual objectification of women is particularly funny. You seem to like hypotheticals, so try this one on for size. A woman goes to work by a certain route. Every day she passes some site occupied by a man who wolf-whistles her, or even loudly proclaims to his friends what he would like to do to "that hot little number" in lurid detail. This is not some wildly unlikely scenario. This happens regularly in the real world, even today. Are you sure that such behaviour has no sociological connection to lists such as this? Do not such lists feed into a culture that makes the objectification of women acceptable? Even casts it as the norm? Should the woman really be required to go to work by another route merely to avoid 'provoking' this response?

Also, what are the penalties for unlicensed lusting? I work in an American high school and believe me, nobody there has even thought to acquire permission to lust there.

I don't know about you, but I generally expect a higher standard of behaviour from supposedly responsible adults than I do from pubescent teens. Also, I never mentioned legal sanctions or punishment. I simply said that the behaviour is offensive and should not be encouraged.

Finally, if I want to lust for Edward or Jacob, who gives me permission to do so?

Private appreciation of another's physicality is one thing, but public objectification is another. If you constantly stated in public while around either young man that you would like to do things to them involving fuzzy handcuffs and whipped cream, then it is very likely that you would soon find yourself subject to a restraining order and rightly identified as a celebrity stalker.

You are also forgetting the historical context of sexual objectification. Women have been treated as the sexual possessions of men for millennia. This state of affairs has not really changed even today, our popular culture is littered with imagry of women who validate themselves solely by their romantic attachment to a man. Women are also still disproportionately subject to sexual trafficking compared to men. This context must be born in mind when discussing what is or is not sexist in relation to the genders. Otherwise, fascile statements that "well, it wouldn't bother a man" become inevitable.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 18, 2010 7:40 PM

Another thing that it's important to clarify that I think lukeprog gets, but just to be sure it's out there - doing something sexist does not make a person an irredeemable sexist pig. It just means they've done something sexist. The point of pointing it out isn't to call the person a sexist pig and ridicule them; it's to say hey, that's sexist, and I'm pointing it out because I assume you care and don't want to be sexist, so would you mind thinking about that? Thanks. A lot of times people respond in such a strong defensive way because they perceive the complaint as "you're sexist", rather than "what you've just done is sexist".

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 7:43 PM

Ol' Greg,

Yup. I've written several times in recent posts that I think it's likely many of us - myself included - are 'implicit sexists' in the same way that most of us, according to a Harvard study, are 'implicit racists.'

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 18, 2010 7:45 PM

Do you honestly believe that anyone who is an actual sexist is going to treat people differently hinging whether or not these lists exist?

Do you honestly believe that sexists don't look at these lists and say "See, I'm not so bad, everyone thinks this way"?

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 7:50 PM

Carlie,

Yup. Good point. Thanks.

Posted by: snurp | July 18, 2010 7:52 PM

lukeprog @107

I'm disinterested in universalist concepts of right and wrong, and they get ridiculous fast. It would be wrong to post a list of random images with attached names on a list labeled "kiddie fiddlers" and probably good or neutral to instead label that list "awesome people." You're apparently working off the assumption that being called sexy is always good, and in the area of the awesome people list.

My question would be, rather, what was your intent, re: the people on the list, when you were making the list? Was the effect on them a consideration? Did you intend to compliment them? If so, not informing them seems to sort of ruin the point. Were results for the actual people on the list irrelevant? Or are you assuming they would all not mind their presence on the list? That seems plausible in the case of the model, but arguable in the case of everyone who was not intentionally posting sexualized photo-shoot of themselves. If someone they work with comes across it and takes them less seriously or harasses them with the post, would you consider that a problem? If so, would you consider yourself partially responsible for that problem?

Posted by: Kirk | July 18, 2010 7:56 PM

I generally agree with the offended women, and thought about attempting a comment regarding how difficult it is to ... never mind.

What is obvious with the photos is that PZ must be overwhelmingly sexy, because his fashion sense is, well, let's just say a disaster.

Did you wear those shoes because you knew you were going to have to grapple with the rhinoceros-like thing? Because they really don't go with the suit.

And pin-stripes with a cowboy hat? Jesus Christ.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 7:58 PM

Cerberus,

I'm glad you see something charitable in the way I'm handling this. I'm curious: Do you have any charitable interest in taking back any of the gross misrepresentations you gave of my views in your first few posts?

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 18, 2010 8:04 PM

lukeprog @112

And now for a bit of levity: the sexiest female atheists!

Of course, there are probably hundreds of sexy actresses, models, and porn stars who just aren’t known as atheists, but here’s a list of the sexiest female confirmed atheists. (Here, I’m taking ‘atheist’ to mean “doesn’t believe in a personal god”, which would include many agnostics and Buddhists.)

Here.

Notice the unconscious language usage.

"The sexiest female atheists!"

"Of course, there are probably hundreds of sexy actresses, models, and porn stars who just aren’t known as atheists"

"but here’s a list of the sexiest female confirmed atheists."

In truth, it's the least of my objections, but it's worth pointing out in regards to how heterosexual male gaze is seen as inherently more qualified than any other and that the current cultural standards of beauty (airbrushed, breast-implants, impossible hip-ratios, blonde, white, etc...) is seen as almost an objective standard of beauty.

I'm noting this mostly because you were very hung up on how "personal" this list was and how you stressed that this was just what you found sexy, when the posts themselves are very general (especially the atheism one).

But that's more beauty myth stuff and addressing a falsehood you were oddly centering your argument around.

For actual objections, I would recommend the following when you have time:

First up, this post on the Male Gaze

The Woman Problem post on Pharyngula where in the comments many women listed "being viewed as a sex object" and unwanted sexual attention as one of the reasons they feel unwelcome at Atheist Conventions.

This post by Jill on the AutoAdmit event wherein women's pictures were passed around in a "I'd do 'em" list and it quickly escalated to rape threats and "hate-fuck" threats and open stalking when women complained about it.

Happy reading and thank you for taking the time to try and learn and grow.

Posted by: James F | July 18, 2010 8:11 PM

Giggity.

Posted by: gregvalcourt | July 18, 2010 8:12 PM

Open question:

Historically, men have been the chasers and women have been attractors. If women were to take a stronger role in chasing and men were to take a stronger role in attracting, how far would that go towards reducing sexism towards women?

Posted by: MrNaglfar | July 18, 2010 8:14 PM

Gah, should have read "care less about sexism when it's happening to men, as opposed to women"

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 8:17 PM

Cerberus,

As for my use of the definite article... sure. To me, the "according to me" imlication is obvious, but I suppose it might not be to others. But to me the idea of making an 'objective' list of 'sexiest' women is weird. I suspect an objective theory of aesthetics could be constructed, but I've studied aesthetic philosophy very little.

Posted by: Susan | July 18, 2010 8:19 PM

For anyone having trouble understanding the creepiness, I recommend this article on the Joel Johnson debacle, "Learning Fail," and its comments.

Posted by: Furcas | July 18, 2010 8:21 PM

PZ wrote:

Wrong. It is not sexist to recognize a bias and take active steps to correct it.

But that's not what you're doing. You're creating another bias that will, you hope, counteract an existing bias in the short term.

Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | July 18, 2010 8:24 PM

That list made me cringe.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 8:27 PM

cyan,

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying I should put effort into not being attracted to young, symmetrical, white-toothed, breasted women?

Should women put effort into not being attracted to smart, confident men with lots of resources?

Posted by: Furcas | July 18, 2010 8:34 PM

Or better yet, have the women explain what it means to be sexy, because men tend to be very poor judges of such phenomena.

"Huh?", indeed. Have your thoughts always been been this confused, PZ, or is this a recent development?

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 8:41 PM

Ol' Greg,

I did not say all women are attracted to those things. I did not say there was a monolithic sex drive in women. I also did not say that smarts, confidence, and wealth was what I valued in men. Instead, I was referring to the scientific literature which says that women are usually attracted to those things.

I also did not say that my views are all men's views. I said they are very common, and apparently for biological reasons. That's just the science. We have to argue about the real world, here.

Please, please, please people. Respond to what I've actually written instead of attacking straw men. P.Z. has taught you about strawmen, yes? I know he has.

Posted by: jack.rawlinson | July 18, 2010 8:42 PM

Can I just say that I have quite a thing for Eugenie Scott?

No?

Okay. Forget I said anything.

Still, that Eugenie. I'd like to instigate a program of practical anthropology with her, if you know what I mean. With full controls and a thorough peer review, obviously.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 8:47 PM

Cerberus,

Okay, now that we're actually talking to each other instead of past each other, I'd like to hear your opinion on this, a post from one of my commenters, which I quoted in the second post of my series exploring the extent of my own sexism:

I have a friend who easily takes offense. Talking to that friend is somewhat comical as I try to avoid saying anything that might possibly be misconstrued by a brain that works incomprehensibly to my own. In the end we don’t talk about much because the conversation field is scattered with eggshells just waiting to be broken.

I’m a teetotaling, non-smoking vegetarian. If I took offense every time someone offered me a drink, or a smoke, or bacon I’d be right to be ridiculed. Some people assume I’m offended when they eat meat in front of me, others tell me I don’t know what I’m missing. I don’t have the time or energy or insecurity to be offended by the things other people say or do. Ultimately I, and I alone, am judge jury and executioner. If I find their friendship not worth putting up with their behavior, then I don’t need to be friends with them.

However sometimes being purposefully provocative is called for. Just as you have a right to take offense, I have a right to say your taking offense is ridiculous. Take the example of drawing Mohammed. I think it’s important to draw Mohammed – not to be intentionally offensive to Muslims, but to make a very strong point that it is not acceptable to kill someone because they’ve offended you. I doubt there would be much interest in drawing Mohammed if it weren’t for the threat of violence that accompanies some Muslim’s umbrage. I see little distinction between it and gang members who kill each other because of slights both perceived and real – it’s immature and thuggish and ought not to be tolerated.

…I wouldn’t want to live in a society where we’re each tiptoeing around trying desperately not to offend someone. If I offend you, and you tell me I’ve offended you, I’ll likely try to avoid offending you in the future. If I think your offense is unwarranted, I’ll try to bring you around to my point of view. Moreover, I expect of my friends that they will challenge me on it – not wilt away in a heap of insecurity with injured sensibilities. I see it as an opportunity for personal growth if friends call me out, and no one is growing if we’re busy tending to each other’s bruised sensibilities.

I don’t believe feelings are necessarily valid. Emotions are reactive. They are both instinctual and learned, and they’re not always right (although confirmation bias leads us to think they usually are). By insisting that others pay deference to our emotional responses, we’re not seeking shared understanding but instead behaving as emotional tyrants. You don’t have to believe what you think and you don’t have to trust what you feel.

Any thoughts?

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 8:52 PM

Ol'Greg,

I don't get it. The fact that I asked if women should try not to be attracted to smarts, confidence, and wealth does not mean that I did say any of the other things you falsely attributed to me.

Also, I do have an interest in women's personalities, obviously. There are some very hot women out there who don't interest me in the least because of their personality. I didn't mention personality in the sexy scientists list for the exact same reason I didn't mention their sporting interests: that wasn't the subject of the list!

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 18, 2010 8:52 PM

Alright. I gotta go cook dinner.

Posted by: Palaverer | July 18, 2010 8:54 PM

Right now I'm wading through the links that have been posted by Cerberus and others (thanks guys!) and I've discovered this gem at shakesville:

"What I am is more sensitive to how misogynist language affects women, because I am one. People of color are more sensitive to racist language (particularly racist dog whistles, for example) than I am; that doesn't mean they're too sensitive. When a reader pointed out to me that my use of the word "lame" to mean "stupid" could be offensive to disabled Shakers, it wasn't that she was too sensitive; it was that I was not sensitive enough. It means that (duh) I still have shit to learn in this world.

"Life is hard enough without my unexpectedly smacking people in the face who trust me not to be a jerk, and it's in that same spirit that I've tried to convey how misogynist language is uncool—hey, I don't want to get blindsided with shit like that from an ostensible ally. When I highlight the use of sexist language at a male-authored blog, it's because such language is alienating and demeaning and infuriating and I'm operating under the assumption that those bloggers don't want to alienate, demean, and infuriate their female readers."

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 8:59 PM

Mattir,

The part that's difficult to understand with your post is probably the part that's difficult to understand for all the women who defended my list, and all the women who said they wish they had made it on my earlier list of sexy atheists.

These are not easy, obvious things, even among women. They are very nuanced, and require some work to figure out.

For example, I could ask: what is your rationale for claiming that I ought not comment on a woman's sexual attractiveness unless invited to do so? This is far from obvious. Should women only comment on my appearance if invited to do so? I hope not. Does this standard apply to other qualities? Should people not comment on people's sexism unless invited to do so? I hope not. When pictures are already publicly made available by someone, does it always require permission to post them to your own site? I doubt it.

Maybe you can make a good argument for all these double standards - probably with reference to the history of misogyny - but doing so is not easy, and not automatic, not even for women, and not even for women who are self-described feminists but got a kick out of my earlier lists of sexy women.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 18, 2010 9:00 PM

ERV, I'm glad you're not bothered by this kind of objectification.

Again, I will say that I at least understand where she is coming from. One can indeed both be bothered by objectification of this type AND be concerned about how the reactions to it tend to be used by sexists to say feminists are crying wolf.

However, I can see that there is little point in discussing what her point was now.

It's lost in the tide.

Posted by: Karen | July 18, 2010 9:02 PM

lukeprog, something else you might want to consider as you try to decide if there is something 'wrong' with your list: many women object to beauty contests, and would never enter one on principle. You have chosen to enter some women that you don't know in a beauty contest.

It doesn't matter that you've decided they are the winners of your contest. They may have strong objections to being evaluated in this way. (Again, we're discussing evaluating women's beauty publicly; everyone is free to evaluate others' beauty privately).

In case you haven't yet read the link in #131 (to a post by a woman named Jill), here's a short quote (she's referring to photos of her being used in just such a way):

... these pictures are all online in my Flickr account ... I didn’t post them (or let them be posted) so that they could be used to enroll me in a law school beauty contest without my permission.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 9:07 PM

Cerberus,

Just a side note. You refer to the "'men pursue, women respond' diseased culture." Do you think this is a cultural thing?

If so, I think that's false. Perhaps P.Z. or somebody else can correct me, but my understanding is that it's nearly a biological universal among sexed species that the sex with greater reproductive investment is the chooser and the sex with lesser reproductive investment is the pursuer. This suggests strongly its a biological issue, not a cultural one.

Posted by: Weed Monkey | July 18, 2010 9:12 PM

Also, I think much of the disagreement has to do with the fact that in my own circles, 'sexy' is a fun, harmless word used to describe women, men, guitars, Apple products, and well-made fruit juice blenders.

Well, they put the photos in the public domain in the first place, so what would be wrong with reposting them (without editing) elsewhere?

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 9:16 PM

Mattir,

If this is really so easy, can you present a sound argument for your position? That would be helpful. Many others have tried and failed to do so. I can't give a sound argument for my position, either, which is why I'm agnostic about all this right now.

But if you think it's easy, an argument for your position would help us all, I think.

Posted by: byronjgrant | July 18, 2010 9:20 PM

...
Anything I have to add is already here.

The skeevyness of it all aside, consent is the major issue.
Things like this can potentially harm someone, even if that's not your intent.

We're all sexist. We're all racist.
That is, unfortunately, the reality of it.
That isn't an excuse to not try to fix the problem.

Yes, women can be sexist towards men. Even if it's just as common (And I have yet to see a convincing argument that it is, or any supporting statistics from anyone claiming this.) Women are far more likely to be hit on, or stalked, or worse.

Sorry to ramble, but: Consent. You can make all the arguments you want, other people asking to be on the list, ect. They're irrelevant. No consent was even asked, let alone given.

Things like this can hurt someones job prospects in the future, can even increase the likelihood of them being stalked, or worse.

Posted by: Karen | July 18, 2010 9:22 PM

lukeprog @ 165

Now you just seem disingenuous.

You shouldn't post public assessments of women's beauty (when you don't have their permission for such) because there is a real chance that it will offend them, and it may make their lives more difficult, and it contributes to a generally sexist atmosphere in our culture.

On an atheist blog that purports to be for everyone, posting a 'pin-up' list alienates women readers and makes them feel unwelcome (not a good thing for the atheist movement).

Because someone posts a picture of themselves on Flickr or Facebook does not mean it's OK for you to use it for your own purposes.

(I'm talking here, of course, about manners and ethics, BTW, not about legalities.)

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 18, 2010 9:23 PM

Ichthyic I get it.

She's saying you're not helping.

It's just an annoying and unhelpful thing to say.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 18, 2010 9:25 PM

lukeprog @171

Yes, very cultural, you have to be carefully taught in all the movies, the media depictions, social reproach (you are a dirty slut, you must be public property) to women who dare approach men, negative reactions in men to being approached by women (and yes, oh boy do they exist), negative response to men who let themselves be approached by women (guess, he's really like a woman, a giant pussy, pussy-whipped, faggot), negative responses to relationships where it's felt that the woman has a more dominant role (again, pussy-whipped), hostile reactions to women who are not passive as really being deviant (lesbians, man-haters, etc...) or otherwise undesired (ugly, bitchy, etc...), and so on and so forth.

Oh yes, it is carefully taught that men pursue, women receive, as we can see in how this "natural" trend as you posit has been radically decreasing in intensity and occurrence as feminism has given more freedom to men and women to more freely choose romantic partners. We see more women feeling free to ask out men in the 2000s than in the 1950s. If it was natural, we would expect the same social interactions as the 50s (tightly regimented and formalized pursuit by men) regardless of what feminists argued.

And yes, it's a diseased viewpoint, one that directly harms both men and women and thus heavily pushed by the patriarchy.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 18, 2010 9:31 PM

Ichthyic @167

An important note.

One can indeed both be bothered by objectification of this type AND be concerned about how the reactions to it tend to be used by sexists to say feminists are crying wolf.

How is this feminist's problem? How is other people trying to use bullshit as a weapon against them? People relying on people's privilege owing to the fact that these discussions aren't had enough a good argument for feminists not having these discussions?

Isn't that stupid?

Sure, anti-feminists will gladly say feminists are crying wolf. Anti-feminists say feminists cry wolf about everything. Sexism in the workplace, sexual harassment, the rape culture, incest, abusive relationships. Everything a feminist has ever complained about has been denied by sexists and they have been accused of crying wolf.

Every. Fucking. Time.

So why does that mean feminists should shut up and hope with all their hope that when they talk about "important issues" TM, that these same liars and denialists will take them seriously? They won't.

But if they point out the little things and how they build into the big things, then they seem to make progress and people start seeing the chains of privilege and thus start seeing how things like the rape culture operate. Because in the end, it's really all little things that create the big things. And ignoring the little things just means we're once again shocked, shocked, I say when the big things come along.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 9:32 PM

Cerberus,

I totally agree about the first part. My "right" to free speech is not a protection from criticism for what I choose to say.

Also, I don't think all women are looking to be offended, but many of them are. But in my experience the same is just as true of males.

I most certainly have not said "it's all in their b*tch heads." Please remember my statements that I'm currently agnostic about the moral value of my list of sexy scientists, and that I'm devoting serious time away from other things to research the primary philosophical literature on this topic, as well as to engage my critics and supporters across several blogs.

As for the next part: Are you saying ERV is "defending misogynist culture" and "defending objectification"? Really?

Posted by: MrNaglfar | July 18, 2010 9:33 PM

@166

Female objectification owing to its commonality is mostly ignored

In this case, however, there is no objectification. No one here has tried to reduce women to nothing beyond sex objects. The point is that, in this instance, people are taking offense over a falsely-perceived notion.

Male objectification owing to its relative rarity is almost always angrily opposed, loudly objected to, and treated to physical revulsion among the heterosexual male populace.

In my view, it's not the objectification that those men are likely responding to. It's that they aren't attracted to, or actively repulsed by, a naked male figure.

Most "sexy" male model shots will often be a slightly open shirt, but as we can see in Luke's atheist list for women, we're getting bikinis and full-on nudity with hands or towels strategically placed.

Again, that may have a lot more to do with people's preferences and a lot less to do with objectification. Heterosexual men find looking at a naked female figure more arousing than women looking at a naked male figure.

In superhero depictions, we see women with impossible hips and spines with boob windows, thongs, outfits that outline the breasts as if there was no costume, and skimpy outfits in general. Men are almost always fully clothed or at most shirtless.

The men are also impossibly muscled, their customs generally doing little to hide that fact. In both cases, by in large, the superhero in question might as well be naked, since the clothing is little more than a colorful outline for their figure. Again, however, this could have more to do with personal preference than objectification.

Though as I noted with DeusExNihilism, that is a way Patriarchy Hurts Men Too, seeing as how appreciating male beauty is depressed can lead to men who are having difficulty dating getting massive attractiveness complexes that can drive them to becoming bitter Nice Guy TMs or Pick-up Culture Assholes that blame women in general for not sleeping with them or making them feel wanted.

I'm not sure appreciating male beauty is "depressed" per se; I would point the finger in a different direction. Rather than the "patriarchy", I'd point again to the evolved personal preferences of men and women, and I'd possibly point towards culture, but in a different way. With all the emphasis people try to put on things that aren't looks on being important, those men can get the incorrect idea that their physical attractiveness isn't relevant. When they see attractive men who keep getting the girl (who is typically labeled by them and others as the "asshole" or the "douchebag" or whatever), they might feel that women are actually attracted to their personalities, which leads them to think that "women like assholes".

Granted, that's speculative, but I think it's certainly plausible.

It's also why many men seem to disbelieve that unwanted sexual attraction could feel threatening or negative, because they have no reference for themselves owing to the "men pursue, women respond" diseased culture.

Women are free to pursue men as they please. They sometimes do, they sometimes choose not to, and often don't need to since they're being pursed already. While I don't doubt that ceaseless attention can get annoying, that same attention can also be very pleasant for people, depending on the source. I find it unpleasant when a woman I don't find attractive flirts with me. It's annoying because I don't want anything to do with her sexually. At the same time, when an attractive women is flirting with me, my experience is distinctly positive. I think a good deal of that frustration may well be because so much of the attention is coming from an unwanted source. That's not to say the sheer amount of it wouldn't get annoying as well, but there's more than that to the story.

This also feeds homophobia, because when they finally do receive unwanted sexual attention from a homosexual, it feels extra-threatening because they don't know how to deal with it and fear men will treat them as women are treated in society.

Or they're responding out of physical disgust at the idea of having sex with man, not because they're afraid of social sanction or being treated differently. Which, again, is not to say that they aren't wary of the social costs being gay can carry, but that there's more to the story than that.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/NxE_lE0Lh_9JksaAqRedu6R7Vg--#bf6f6 | July 18, 2010 9:35 PM

lukefrog,

I'll second (or third) the comments from others indicating their appreciation that you seem to be willing and actively trying to understand the blowback from your list and the underlying issues.

Keep reading. Keep discussing. Keep thinking about it. My hope is that one day you will have a breakthrough, lose your "agnosticism" and update the sexy list post(s) on your blog to include, at the top, a prominent mea culpa describing what you've learned and include a few links to things that helped you work through it so that when people encounter your lists in the future they might have their eyes opened too.

Earlier, you were talking about the inherent positive nature of the word sexy. I contend that in the context of your list and this discussion, that goodness is utterly irrelevant. Please read this paragraph you wrote, with a few substitutions:

just like the philanthropistwoman is not obliged to receive my calling himher "generous"sexy positively. Maybe heshe has good reasons to avoid that label. Maybe heshe is so philanthropicgoddamn hot heshe gets "harassed" everywhere heshe goes by people calling himher generousfuckable, and heshe doesn't want it anymore. That's fair.

Get it? If not, read it again. Repeat as necessary.

Posted by: SaintStephen | July 18, 2010 9:36 PM

Or better yet, have the women explain what it means to be sexy, because men tend to be very poor judges of such phenomena.

Huh? *Facepalm*

C'mon PZ... I know damn well what sexy means to me; I certainly know it when I see it, and I definitely don't care about, or give one chick pea for anybody else's opinion, male or female.

(Unless they were showing photos, of course.)

There's also the nagging little fact that what people consider to be "sexy" often CHANGES rather significantly over time, from their pre-teen years to retirement age, depending heavily upon their experiences. Yes kids, that would be creepy old man sexual-type experiences, for those of you scoring at home, no pun intended.

Sexy, as a concept, isn't static, in other words. Plus, it is so riddled with cultural baggage it has become a word without any clear meaning. And what about money? If Woody Allen was presently a busboy at Denny's, would he qualify as sexy? Yet his actual financial success would have women virtually throwing themselves at his feet, were he to allow it.

What sexy is, is just a perfect example of a non-discussion; one that will probably carry on for several hundred more comments. Wait a minute... maybe THAT'S why Professor Myers deferred it to the women...

*Ducks the flying flower vase and grabs coat*

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 9:37 PM

gregvalcourt,

Please see my reply to Azkyroth. I did not make a fallacious appeal to nature. That was Azkyroth's strawman.

Posted by: Gyatso | July 18, 2010 9:38 PM

Hmmm.

[by way of introduction,I've been following this blog for years; have gotten familiar with many of the regulars - old ones and newer, frequent posters; and very rarely post comments of my own. But that could change.

It's strange to me - and yet not - that some posters (apparently mostly men) seem to think that they get to define or determine what sexist behavior toward women is, or that they are in a position to validate women's experience of sexism.

As was well said on "The Woman Problem" thread, it is inevitable that even though many of us may, on a conscious, intentional level abhor sexism, racism, etc., our acculturation as members of a sexist or racist (or other 'ist') culture may nonetheless blind us to ways in which we are nonetheless subtly sexist or racist or whatever.

We don't mean to be. We try not to be. And yet, we still manage to be received as being sexist or etc. If you're on the receiving end, the fact that the perpetrator didn't mean to be insensitive or arrogant, or whatever, doesn't make the experience any less unpleasant.

This is why results are more important than intention. If someone feels they are being disregarded or objectified because of their gender, that's their experience. No one else get's to say it's valid or not (That should be glaringly obvious - but oddly it doesn't seem to be for some posters).

Additionally, to add to what Carlie has written, when we act, or do something, we really can't control, nor necessarily see the full range of effects our actions will have.

I can appreciate, for example, how for lukeprog "sexy" may have a meaning that goes beyond sexual activity and may simply refer to whatever incites admiration or can hold his attention. But there's no controlling how other people will understand that term. There's no controlling how others will feel when they find that word in that context.

Furthermore, even if we do something or say something that those in our circle will get, again, if it's done in a public space, we can't control what other people who share that space, who aren't in on the joke, will think or understand about our words or actions.

lukeprog, I guess I'm just surprised that it wouldn't occur to you that (since you're obviously aware that 'sexy' doesn't mean to you what it means to most people) people outside your circle could be offended by your list.

I'm more surprised though, since you seem to have suggested that you regard yourself as a feminist, that when real women tell you how your post contributes to the culture of gender inequality, and how it may discourage women from becoming more visible or active as atheists, you essentially say it doesn't. Or that since you're an ally, you can't be being sexist.

And let me be clear - I know you've written a post about how you're probably mistaken - but that's you writing to you. Here, on this blog, and I imagine in the comments section of your own blog, the real discussion is happening.
Real people, real women telling you what their experience, as women, is. They want you to listen. To understand. They don't want - and hell, I don't want, you to explain why you're not being sexist. At a conscious level, in your mind, I'm sure you're not.
But the more deeply planted stuff is leaking out. And these people are pointing that out to you. So pay attention.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 9:40 PM

Cerberus,

It does not surprise me that culture reinforces what is biologically natural. Indeed, that's almost a necessary consequence of what is biologically natural. But let me ask this: Do you agree that 'men pursue, women receive' is a biological law for our species? If so, how do you respond to the biological evidence I presented?

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 18, 2010 9:43 PM

lukeprog @184

Unfortunately yes, because women's bodies are viewed as public property (which is why it didn't at all feel odd to publish your list in the first place). As such, employment places may see nude or sexy photos as signs of frivilous femininity and such and take candidates much less seriously or see them as open season to sexually harass or attempt to stalk.

I posted earlier about AutoAdmit which started as a "Beauty Contest" sort of deal like you did and when women called them out on it, the men in the thread started doing "RapeWatches" and writing about hate-fucking and posting the schedules and photos of the girls around school and how easy it would be to find them and "exact their revenge".

Nowhere near what you did or plan to do, but these attitudes are unfortunately out there owing to cultural sexism and are unfortunately common owing to cultural sexism and your posts lend social approval to the concept that women are sexual public property.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 9:45 PM

To the Yahoo person who called me "lukefrog":

Your rewording of my post is exactly what I was trying to say. I'll state it here explicitly: Just because I intend 'sexy' as a compliment does not oblige a woman to receive it positively. Maybe she's so sexy she gets harassed everywhere she goes and she doesn't want it anymore.

Posted by: naddyfive | July 18, 2010 9:47 PM

It strikes me as strange that otherwise highly intelligent people have *such* a hard time with this sort of thing when it comes up- and come up it does, as any woman who has ever dared to encroach on a male-dominated field can attest.

Subbie says:

"It's not sexist for anyone to recognize or even comment on the attractiveness of any other person. What would be sexist would be to assert that that is all that that person has to offer."

Not exactly. The point is not that it's sexist of this man to have sexual feelings about these women. It's not even slightly weird or offensive, in my personal assessment, that he looked at their pictures (maybe a little on the pathetic side, but not ethically suspect). We all have preferences, and for most of us, physical/visual cues are a major factor in what turns us on sexually. No problems there, no judgments made, no sexist violations to flag.

His little photoessay becomes sexist, however, when he posts it in public. This is when it becomes what a critical theorist might call a "speech act", or a "performative act", when links up to larger social patterns, to the history of women's struggles for social and economic parity with men, to a whole world wide network of cultural signification that we all participate in. Don't put something out there and get upset when people to respond to it as they see fit. (It does seem that he took the criticism as a point of reflection, so that's a tick in his favor.)

As someone mentioned earlier, the reason why it is sexist to post this sort of thing is not because women are so delicate that they can't handle the thought that men look at them lustily- the problem is that all of these seemingly innocent little one off incidents where the value of women is reduced to their physical attractiveness to straight (usually white) men add up to something big. They add up to a culture where there's still a wage gap, where large swathes of women are still considered "unrapeable", where murder is still the leading cause of death for pregnant women, where women are brutally tortured and killed by men every day, where symbolic woman is slotted into one of two categories, virgin or whore, so female sexuality can be more easily monitored and controlled and women's political movement suppressed.

Also important to consider is the fact that making these sorts of "hot or not" judgments is still largely the purview of privileged males. Listmaking and seeing the world as a sort of singles bar unto itself, all there for your taking, is a form of male privilege, a sort of power reserved for males and denied women. It's also just plain tactless, more often than not. Keep in mind that he is rating professional women who have actively chosen to be recognized for their scientific accomplishments, and not their work as glamor models, and then reducing them to their bodily appearance and trying to dress it all up in language about atheism as a movement and "fun! lighten up!"... I mean, really, these are the most threadbare lines in the book.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 9:51 PM

Gyatso:

You wrote to me:

you seem to have suggested that you regard yourself as a feminist, that when real women tell you how your post contributes to the culture of gender inequality, and how it may discourage women from becoming more visible or active as atheists, you essentially say it doesn't. Or that since you're an ally, you can't be being sexist.

Where did I deny that my post contributes to the culture of gender inequality? Where did I deny that my post discourages women from becoming more visible or active as atheists? I did not.

I also did not say that because I'm an ally, therefore I can't really be being sexist. In fact, I explicitly have stated multiple times that I could easily being sexist despite my feminist cognitions, perhaps an 'implicit sexist' like we all seem to be implicit racists.

I would count this as strawman #44 on this thread, but instead I would like to congratulate you for at least saying that I only "seem" to be saying what you misrepresented me as saying. Thanks for that.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 9:53 PM

Ladies,

Would you comment on P.Z.'s alternate universe explained above? Is that roughly what many of you experience?

Thanks!

Luke

Posted by: snurp | July 18, 2010 9:53 PM

lukeprog

I'm going to address your post slightly out of order, first off is your set of reasons for not contacting:

(1) I couldn't find all their contact information,

(2) it's often nicer to stumble upon a compliment to yourself as a surprise, as some of the listed females did, and

(3) it wasn't the sole, or even the main purpose of the post to compliment these women.

So that brings us to the whole "whether or not someone might want to be on the list thing." Obviously you know now that if you grabbed a random sample of women scientists you find sexually attractive and publicize it, some of them might be unhappy with the exposure. But should you have expected that going in?

I think the generous man metaphor is bad (as you're comparing an intentional pattern of behavior to a trait someone has little to no control over - a generous man can cease to be generous, whereas street harassers, at least, apparently can find women sexy while they're wearing parkas, dressed like Bozo the clown, covered in offal, etc) but I'll roll with it.

I am working off the assumption that if your generous man contacted you and told you to take the posting down for any reason whatsoever you would, so all I'm talking about is the assumptions going in, not unlikely predilections that show up afterwards.

If you lived in a world where generosity was associated with "stupidity" and "gullibility," even though the same people would claim, if pressed, that it was a good trait in and of itself, then someone who was trying to associate themselves with "canniness" and "intelligence" might be reasonably annoyed to be called generous. If you lived in a world where people known to be generous were followed or mobbed regularly by people expecting donations (...this may have happened to me because I'm an idiot) and if you were aware of the fact that a not-insignificant portion of the population objected to being called generous for these reasons, then you wouldn't be justified in making a post of the ten most generous people unless you knew they were all people who were okay with being called generous.

But I disagree with your argument that sexy is fundamentally good whether or not... the people using the word think it's good (?!). It means "causing sexual arousal." While it can be applied to inanimate objects, you've repeatedly defended your tastes in women by referring to those parts of them that act as fecundity signals and by referencing libidinal desires. Causing sexual arousal is not necessarily a good thing, because we live in a culture where sexual desire often leads to violence or is used as a justification for removing some portion of the population from public life/view because they'll function as a distraction.

But really Mattir covered my big problem at 170.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 9:55 PM

Mattir,

No argument yet?

Not so easy after all, is it?

Like I've said before, I kinda suspect I'll be coming around to something more like your view when this winds down, but not because people get angry and attack straw men. If I come around to your view it will be because of arguments, not insults.

Posted by: Miki Z | July 18, 2010 10:05 PM

I haven't seen this question asked or answered. I did read the comments here, but perhaps I've missed it.

Just who is the first woman, the one labeled "sexy scientist", rather than with a name? I have concerns for her ocular safety -- when J. Random Scientist Lover starts fucking her from behind while she's looking through that microscope, she could end up with a nasty bruise. And that bruise would probably not be sexy.

Easiest thing is probably for her to just avoid the microscope. Better all around, and there are good biological reasons to not look in microscopes.

Posted by: Furcas | July 18, 2010 10:07 PM

I would be absolutely delighted if someone here (or anywhere else) would tell us what objectification is and what is so wrong with it.

I'm almost absolutely certain that all the definitions that will be offered will be completely incoherent, or completely harmless, or will have absolutely nothing to do with what people usually think when they say "objectification".

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 10:07 PM

Karen,

Ah, okay. So the problem with calling women sexy is that it's rude.

But hold on, then - what about all the women who left comments saying they didn't see any problem with the list at all? What about the women who left comments saying they wished they'd been included on my earlier list of sexy atheists? They don't seem to think it's rude. Do the people who are offended get to decide what's rude, but the people who like it have no say in the matter? Is it a majority thing? What are you trying to argue, here?

Also, there are additional complications, as you've acknowledged.

The thing is, a lot of what's been said by my critics is intuitive to me. On reflecting after making the post and reading my critics, it's rather intuitive to me that one ought to ask permission before using a woman's photos in this way, and so on. So maybe I'll end up accepting that (instead of being agnostic about it, as I am now) without any arguments. But it would be really nice to have some arguments, if you have any.

Or rather, you've given arguments, but there are lots of unsupported premises I'm trying to draw out so that they can be explained.

Please don't take this further request for clarification as disingenuous. Unless you consider the entire field of applied ethics in moral philosophy as disingenuous. This is how applied ethics and logical analysis work.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 18, 2010 10:10 PM

lukeprog-

Tell you what, whatever you are harassing Mattir about, I'll answer. Please restate what you are looking for from her and I will do my best to oblige.

Fair?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 18, 2010 10:11 PM

But hold on, then - what about all the women who left comments saying they didn't see any problem with the list at all?

Women are different people. They will not all agree or react the same way. Hell, a woman was the one who said that child incest-rape victims should consider unwanted pregnancies from said rape as a blessing and make "lemonade" from it.

Posted by: byronjgrant | July 18, 2010 10:16 PM

Hm. Last comment on this really, but LP seems more interested in defending what he did that even acknowledging any arguments or valid criticisms of his behavior.
Point in case: the reasons for not asking consent were all, basically, excuses. None of them really valid.

Responses to any and all criticisms of the rest are also dismissed, leading to the above conclusion.
Not interested in the consequences, just wants to tell himself that he was right and the rest were wrong.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 10:22 PM

Cerberus,

Uh-oh, we're back to the straw men.

Since I explicitly denied gender essentialism above, we must be thinking of different meanings for the term. What do you have in mind when you refer to "gender essentialism"?

I also specifically denied - twice - that social cultural oppressions are justified by facts about how they are natural.

Has the 0.7 WHR claims been debunked? Where? I was not aware of this. I know there is slight cultural variation, for example .6 is preferred in China and .8 in South Africa, but... that ain't much. Is that what you meant by "debunked"?

I'm sorry to hear of your unfortunate story. Also, the changes in your life must give you a perspective on these issues unavailable to most of us - except very dimly through 'in their shoes' videos like the one linked by Palaverer.

Where does asexuality fit in the biology of sexual pursuit and choosiness? I have no idea. It probably doesn't. Choosiness is a predictable trait of whichever sex of the species has a greater investment in reproduction. Pursuit is a predictable trait of whichever sex of the species has a lesser investment in reproduction. I'm not familiar with the research on other categories for sexuality, and I made no claims about them.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 10:24 PM

snurp,

All excellent points! Thanks.

Posted by: SaintStephen | July 18, 2010 10:27 PM

No offense intended, but I have great difficulty listening to married men on the topic of sexism.

One can always clearly discern the point where the rationality ceases, and the irrationality (i.e. undying, devotional, forever and ever, you're still the one) LOVE for their current spouse begins.

It's just not science. Or logical. Hence, we get snarky statements like this: (naddyfive @205)

"It's not even slightly weird or offensive, in my personal assessment, that he looked at their pictures (maybe a little on the pathetic side, but not ethically suspect). We all have preferences, and for most of us, physical/visual cues are a major factor in what turns us on sexually. No problems there, no judgments made, no sexist violations to flag."

No judgements made? Please explain "pathetic". That most certainly IS a judgement. And what, exactly, is pathetic about looking at pictures of pretty women? You weren't talking about publishing them without their consent, that came later... you said just LOOKING AT THEM was "pathetic".

This whole stupid debate will become moot when designer babies become the norm--and you can bet your sweet bippy they will, a few decades from hence. Maybe the Nazi corporations will have vanished by then also, which would be another solution to the problems described by PZ for females in the workplace. As a single man, I've suffered through the sexist-like discrimination treatment plenty of times, from both men AND women.

Bye-bye, ugly people. And good riddance. And I DEFINITELY include myself in that august list. But just in case I'm reincarnated, here is a time capsule message to my future parents:

6'6" 265 lbs, jet black hair, 32-inch waist, rippling trapezius and deltoid muscles you could bury an axe in, skin like gold-glazed porcelain, a square jawline you could measure with a protractor, steely blue-gray eyes, and hung like a plowhorse. Oh... almost forgot. Please, Mommy. Thank-you.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 10:31 PM

Mattir,

I've said multiple times here and especially on my blog that some of my critics have made excellent points. That sounds to you like 'blowing off all criticisms'? Also, when I reply by carefully explaining why I've been misrepresented, or by asking clarification questions - which is almost all I've done here - that's 'blowing off all criticisms'? Please.

You think I'm not going to change my mind? You don't know me. I've changed my mind several times in response to criticism from my readers on my blog, and I've already said explicitly that I expect to do so in this case as well. You're taking a losing bet, here.

Your reason for not giving an argument in favor of your position is quite reasonable, but does serve to illustrate that these issues are not as simple as you make them out to be.

Posted by: Gyatso | July 18, 2010 10:32 PM

lukeprog@207

Where did I deny that my post contributes to the culture of gender inequality?

In excusing your usage of the word sexy, which you did in a few of your posts, you implied that the post itself wasn't sexist.

Where did I deny that my post discourages women from becoming more visible or active as atheists? I did not.

True enough - on the other hand, when this was brought to your attention, you did not - at least not here - consider the possibility that that might indeed be true, and that your thread could be a cause for that. Similarly, at, I think it was #88, you suggested that since women who had (hypothetically) consented to having their picture included in your list would have the same challenges in being treated seriously (in the event of a reference or background check0as would the women who didn't consent to having their pictures put up. IOW, you basically suggested that since the results would be negative in either case, your failure to get permission doesn't alter the outcome. Which is absurd for numerous reasons (e.g. had you asked for consent someone may have refused it precisely because they wanted to control what images of them were on the interner; moreover, you actually had a choice to post the pictures or not. You chose to post them. That makes you responsible.

I also did not say that because I'm an ally, therefore I can't really be being sexist.

Well, kinda you did - in #88 you wrote

I'm engaging an 'intramural' debate, as it were, within the feminist community, about the rightness or wrongness of posting a list of sexy scientists. This is something on which feminists disagree, and a question I'm still trying to clarify by investing lots of my free time reading feminist literature.

In fact, I explicitly have stated multiple times that I could easily being sexist despite my feminist cognitions, perhaps an 'implicit sexist' like we all seem to be implicit racists.

Yes you did do that, and I acknowledged it. The point I tried to make and will try again since my previous attempt was not good enough, is that what you write on your blog is you thinking to you. It's a very important step, a good one. Personal dialog is vital dialog. But at the end of the day we usually just tell ourselves what we are most comfortable believing, or already believe. That's just our habit. We're not terribly novel creatures.
And this is why dialoging with others is so important. They see things we don't. Sometimes, we're happy when that happens, like when we've got a little booger dangling out of one nostril - and other times it can be very painful.
In my experience, if it doesn't make me uncomfortable, if it doesn't chaffe or rub a little, then I'm not changing. And if I'm not changing, I'm not learning.

Finally, to put it back to you in your own words which I believe you mean, you do care. You're not a douche bag. That's really, really important and very good new - because it means you can afford to be empathetic if you choose to be. And there are a lot of people on this board trying to share their experience (not their feminist theory) with you.

Posted by: Furcas | July 18, 2010 10:35 PM

Cerberus,

The only concise definition I could find on those three pages was at the top of the first one:

"Sexual objectification is the viewing of people solely as de-personalised objects of desire instead of as individuals with complex personalities and desires/plans of their own. This is done by speaking/thinking of women especially as only their bodies, either the whole body, or as fetishised body parts."

This definition fits perfectly into the "completely harmless" category. What's so bad about failing to think of people as individuals with complex personalities and desires of their own? It's something we all do dozens of times every day. When you greet the bus driver and hand him your ticket, do you think of him of an individual with a complex personality? Do you care about his plans and desires? Of course not, you only think of him as the guy who play a minor role in allowing you to get to your destination. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Is there a reason why objectification, as defined above, would suddenly become morally wrong when you insert sexual desire into the equation? I sure can't think of any. Can you?

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | July 18, 2010 10:38 PM

@James F.: Giggety indeed.

I understand the disdain for where the pics came from, but since they were there and PZ linked to it, I'm not going to avert my gaze and ignore a long list of sciency women once I'm already at that site. I'll attribute it to the 1 to 2% of neandertal DNA and make no further apologies.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 18, 2010 10:42 PM

Cerberus @229

What strawmen? Do you even know what strawmen means?

I was arguing that pursuit is male, reception is female is not biologically based and that most of the evo-psych arguments which would be the "evolution would make sense this way, so cultural oppression is natural" argument you just made in 229, by the way, have been thoroughly debunked by actual science into the subject.

Furthermore, I gave historical and personal accounts to the evidence of how it is cultural in construction instead, i.e. not a natural state of things.

I never argued about your fucking .7 WHR claim whatsoever, but since you brought it up.

Rennaisance era. Fat people used to be the greatest example of beauty by culture in that era owing to their correlation with wealth. Now that wealth is more correlated with having access to gyms and plastic surgeons, having thin waists but big busts are seen as what is most beautiful.

In fact, there has been great work by sociologists showing how dramatically, the beauty standards of far apart eras differ from one and another owing to cultural ideas of wealth and what was most passed around as the "beauty standards".

Given that much of what you find attractive aren't actually .7 WHRs but actually impossible physiques airbrushed and "augmented" by plastic surgery, it is rather pernicious how things like .7 WHR are post-haste justifications for cultural trends.

And again, google Pandagon and evo-psych, because damn are you one gullible believer in that diseased batch of gender essentialism pseudoscience.

Here's a place to start.

But back to your point, yeah, beauty standards wildly differ between modern cultures, ancient and modern culture, and so forth. If it was biologically based we'd see some consistency.

Getting back to the men pursue, women receive argument, you threw up some pablum about evolution that misses the point of evolution (both sexes "have an interest in propogating the species", you idiot or do you believe women don't have sex drives?). I presented both historical and personal accounts of how that model has distinct cultural roots and training.

Posted by: Teshi | July 18, 2010 10:43 PM

From a personal point of view, I think I'd be pretty offended if someone had found me in some random search and decided to use my picture and my name in a list for something I don't value.

I'm fine if people want to give me awards and commendations for my intelligence or my abilities (not that I'm a scientist). Unless I'm a major public figure-- which I think is what sets the Daniel Radcliffe, Liam Neeson list apart from this one-- I'm not cool with being on somebody's "sexiest" list and, were I asked, would probably refuse.

I think that I should get to chose when my photo is published, and ESPECIALLY when my picture is published attached to some attribute I don't necessarily advertise myself.

So yeah, I think this is pretty unacceptable. If even one of those women is unhappy with this man's decision to line them up in this manner, it's not only sexist, it's ethically suspect.

And srsly, if you want to promote women in science, you know what list you make? "Top Women in Science", "Top Young Women In Science", "Most Intelligent Women in Science", "Coolest Women in Science". And you write about their achievements. Come on! This is exactly what it looks like.

@lukeprog:

Finally, yes I write lists about women I find 'sexy', but please take note of the multiple times in this thread I've pointed out that to me the word 'sexy' does not have a drooling lusty connotation, but rather is a word I also apply to Apple products and guitars and well-designed blenders.

So, you frequently view your blenders in bikinis. do you? As insulting as this comparison to objects is, I doubt that you intended it in that light. When applied to scantily clad women with no discussion, "sexy" has only ONE connotation and it is foolish of you to now backtrack and claim you mean "sexy" in the "well designed blender" sense. Duh! How could have we been so stupid?

Third, I do not ignore posts showing how viewing women sexually harms them. Instead, I spent hours considering and trying to strengthen such comments being made by my critics, and am now seeking out exactly those kinds of arguments in the works of leading feminist philosophers like Martha Nussbaum.

As #197 pointed out, lots of women in this thread, have told you that they find this unnecessary and offensive. True-- some are dissenters. But it is nevertheless hilarious that you would turn to feminist philosophy rather than taking what the women in this thread have said.

Everything you have said is rationalization, pure and simple.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 18, 2010 10:45 PM

This is really going around in circles. Lukeprog, I'm glad that you're still engaged, but could we maybe get at this from a different angle? If you've agreed that your post may have been seen as sexist by some people, and may have upset some of the women on the list (given that you have no idea of their histories, and whether they are sick of being looked at as sex objects, or have sexual assault in their past, etc.), then what would you say makes it a good post? Rather than you continuing to ask the same question that apparently people aren't answering to your satisfaction, could you explain your side of it more thoroughly? What do you think is good enough about that post for it to be something you proudly display on your web site?

Posted by: Karen | July 18, 2010 10:49 PM

lukeprog wrote:

But here's another thought: I have a nude video of myself on YouTube. Would it be wrong for someone to react by saying, online, "He's totally hot" or "Ewwww! I'd never sleep with him!" Would these things be wrong, because they are evaluating my body "in public", on the internet?

Yes, it would be rude. Lots of people would probably (may already have??) done so, but that doesn't make it not rude. I don't think we can look to your typical YouTube commenter as a source of wisdom on ethics.

OTOH, I would also suggest that posting a nude video on a venue like YouTube is signficantly different from posting neutral photos of yourself (vacation pics, professional pics, etc.) on a venue like Flickr or Facebook (particularly Facebook, which many users think gives them more privacy than it does).

People posting on YouTube generally want responses, and most people posting there know that they'll get them -- including rude ones. So it's a bit more of a 'poster beware' situation.

But I don't think a person trying to be thoughtful of another's feeling would post your hypothetical responses anyway.

Karen

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 10:53 PM

Karen,

No. Not disingenuous. This is not a game. I care about this stuff. That's why I'm spending hours discussing it with my critics and supporters and praising them for their good points. That's why I'm taking time away from other things I was planning to do to read feminist philosophical literature on objectification. I care deeply about being a moral person, and I do not shrug this stuff off or debate it because I'm bored. I want to be a moral person, and in fact want to devote my life to moral philosophy. This is not a game for me, and I am not being disingenuous.

This is not a game, and it is also not a logic-free zone. Ethics is not a logic-free zone.

So, let me break it down:

1. Gyatso said that I had denied that my sexy scientists list contributes to a culture of gender inequality, and that I denied that my post discourages women from becoming more active as atheists.

2. This was false. I had not denied these things, and I said so.

3. You wrote: "Presumably, if you thought that your post contributes to the culture of gender inequality, you would think it was wrong. Presumably, if you thought your post discouraged women from becoming more visible or active as atheists, you would think it was wrong."

4. Even if (3) is correct, it is still consistent with (2). Why? Because "not denying" something is not identical to affirming it.

Karen, this is not a game. I really, really care about ethics and think it's hugely important. If you were a reader of my blog you would know that. But ethics is not a logic-free zone, and I will not treat it as such.

Because I do not trust my moral intuitions, I look for arguments. Arguments are not fool-proof, but because I adhere to a kind of naturalized epistemology, I take argument and evidence more seriously than basic intuitions. That's why I keep asking for arguments: Not because you're obligated to provide them, but because they would be helpful to we men who are confused about sexism. In fact, if I come around to your side, I may end up using these very arguments to convince other men that things like my list of sexy scientists are harmful.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 10:57 PM

byronjgrant,

You said it does not seem like I take criticisms seriously. Your illustrating example is my three "excuses" for why I did not ask permission.

But hold on, now. Did you see what I said when giving those very excuses? I said explicitly in the same sentence that they "might be post-hoc rationalizations." That sounds to you like someone who isn't willing to change his mind.

The real kicker is that when snurp replied in depth to my three excuses, my reply to snurp did not try to defend my original position at all, but instead was, in its entirety:

snurp,

All excellent points! Thanks.

Methinks the evidence here weighs against your impression of me.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 11:01 PM

Aquaria,

Maybe I misunderstood Ol'Greg. Ol'Greg, did I misrepresent what you were saying?

Posted by: Karen | July 18, 2010 11:03 PM

lukeprog @ 251

If logic is so important to you, why did you quote only part of my argument and then say it was incomplete?

My argument is:
1. You claim not to deny that your post has bad consequences
2. You claim to not have decided if your post is good or bad
3. I will assume that your statements about being non-sexist and caring about feminism are correct.

Ergo, if #2 is true, then you must believe that your post does not have bad consequences. You may not have in fact actively denied those bad consequences. But it is fair to assume you do not recognize that they are there. This is now just semantics, which is why it seems you are just playing a game.

Karen

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 18, 2010 11:04 PM

I don't know about misrepresent but you damn sure seemed unable to *hear* what I was saying and I dropped it because I figured it'd be a waste of time.

Which, incidentally what I'm going to have to do with this whole argument because I've got to read some and get to bed in time to wake up for work tomorrow.

Posted by: Furcas | July 18, 2010 11:06 PM

What a fucking sick comparison. It is, if nothing else, a cab drivers job to drive you.

It is not my job to show my ass off so you can judge it, or to be sexy for you.

Fuck you.

Ah, the fact that driving is the man's job is preventing you from getting the point of the comparison. I see. Well then, let me alter my question so that you may get the point:

"A man might consider himself a taxi driver, a football fan, a husband, a father. If you classify him by how much hair he has left on his head, and by how attractive this degree of baldness is, have you objectified him?"

The followup question, I remind you, is: If you think that this is what objectification is, what is wrong with it?

Posted by: Palaverer | July 18, 2010 11:08 PM

Luke, I'd like to jump on Carlie's question and add this: in the original post (and reaffirmed elsewhere) you said you were pandering to yourself. You posted women whom you enjoy looking at. Why then did you feel the need to post their pictures to your blog, rather than just enjoy them in privacy? Who did you think was reading your blog that would appreciate it?

I have a file of pics I find sexy on my computer. I could post them to my blog, but since pretty much the only person who reads it is my brother, that would be weird and off-putting to him as my audience. What audience were you posting for?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 18, 2010 11:09 PM

Boobquake.

Which is a good point. The thing about it though was that it was entirely voluntary. A lot of us put pics up because we were willing to, ourselves.

I don't mind having pics up of myself, but it hurts my feelings very personally if my tits are all anyone cares about and all my work and effort to do something with my life was worthless and meaningless because for thirty or so years I'll be fuckable and then... well I might as well die, right?

Because I live in a society that only values me first and foremost as an object.

That's the life I have to live, no matter what I do.

So yeah. If some one made a list "Hot women in IT" and stuck my picture on it I'd be hurt and sad.

I'd have it reaffirmed that the only thing that matters about me is my body. And I'd feel the very real threat of what that means for my future weighing on me.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 18, 2010 11:16 PM

Ah, the fact that driving is the man's job is preventing you from getting the point of the comparison. I see. Well then, let me alter my question so that you may get the point:

Oh and by the way it's not me not getting the point. It's your shitty comparison being so completely inherently sexist and privileged that there damned near was no point.

Posted by: Palaverer | July 18, 2010 11:18 PM

Well said, Ol'Greg. Someone feel free to make a list of all the famous, well-liked bald men, then compare it to all the famous well-liked, non-sexy (based on current cultural standards) women.

I'm not that bored.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 11:19 PM

Gyatso,

It sounds like "not sexist" for you implies "doesn't contribute to the culture of gender inequality." I can see you thinking that, in which case we just had a misunderstanding.

I'm glad we agree about the issue, with regard to the sexy atheists post.

IOW, you basically suggested that since the results would be negative in either case, your failure to get permission doesn't alter the outcome.

No. I was just asking for clarification on the argument being given. I did not at all say that failing to get permission doesn't alter the outcome. That's absurd, as you say.

You also said that by positioning myself within the feminist community, and by noting that feminists disagree, I was not taking responsibility for my actions. But that's incorrect. I did not call myself a feminist or note that feminists disagree in order to avoid taking responsibility for my actions. I said those things in response to Cerberus' claim that I was bashing feminists for their "feministry." Again, you've stepped beyond what I did say to a conclusion I did not make. From the facts that I call myself a feminist and that feminists disagree about the value of my post, it does not follow that I am not responsible for the post or its impact.

Personal dialog is vital dialog. But at the end of the day we usually just tell ourselves what we are most comfortable believing, or already believe. That's just our habit. We're not terribly novel creatures.

Agreed. This is a central theme of what I write on my blog.

And this is why dialoging with others is so important. They see things we don't. Sometimes, we're happy when that happens, like when we've got a little booger dangling out of one nostril - and other times it can be very painful. In my experience, if it doesn't make me uncomfortable, if it doesn't chaffe or rub a little, then I'm not changing. And if I'm not changing, I'm not learning.

I could not possibly agree more!

I also agree that people sharing their experience is helpful. So are arguments. I appreciate both.

Posted by: Karen | July 18, 2010 11:22 PM

lukeprog wrote:

That's why I keep asking for arguments: Not because you're obligated to provide them, but because they would be helpful to we men who are confused about sexism. In fact, if I come around to your side, I may end up using these very arguments to convince other men that things like my list of sexy scientists are harmful.

People have been providing you with arguments all evening.

It would seem that you consider it insufficient argument that numerous women have stated:
1. they would be offended to be objectified in this way.
2. they know of women who have been upset and have suffered negative personal and professional consequences from being objectified in this way (included in other such lists).
3. finding such a list on a general atheist blog makes them feel unwelcome in the broader atheist community and makes that community seem more like a 'boys' club'.

Is that correct?

There have been additional arguments put forth about the inappropriateness of using other peoples' photos (in any context) without permission.

You can decide that you don't care if it offends the women used in the list (or risks harm to them) or turns away women visiting your blog, I suppose. But you really can't keep saying that no one is giving you arguments.

Karen

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 18, 2010 11:26 PM

The fact that you find objectification completely harmless and claim to engage in it with most strangers leads me to believe you might be a psychopath

I was almost thinking the same thing. But I think it's just a case of "I don't see how it would hurt me so it must not hurt anyone" in effect.

1. they would be offended to be objectified in this way. 2. they know of women who have been upset and have suffered negative personal and professional consequences from being objectified in this way (included in other such lists). 3. finding such a list on a general atheist blog makes them feel unwelcome in the broader atheist community and makes that community seem more like a 'boys' club'.

From what I've seen:

1. Doesn't matter. Some women wouldn't be so the ones who are are just over-emotional, hypersensitive, or otherwise people who don't need to be listened to.

2.Doesn't matter. That's probably not true anyway.

3.They just need to toughen up and shut up and learn to enjoy it.

Posted by: Furcas | July 18, 2010 11:28 PM

PZ wrote:

Furcas, notice that I said the problem is when you substitute an irrelevant caricature for the full person. Your taxi driver wants you to think of him as someone who will reliably get you to your destination.
There are very few women who want you to think of them as pretty things to masturbate to.

Ah, now objectification has become "thinking something about someone that this person doesn't want you to think". I think the taxi driver is bald and I find baldness unattractive. I even think of the taxi driver as, "this bald dude driving the taxi". According to your definition I have objectified him. Why is this bad?

In many cases, the male view of the woman as a desirable sex object becomes a serious obstacle to further discussion. Maybe you don't do this, but every woman will have stories of that guy who couldn't lift his eyes from her boobs to her face, or spent the whole date talking about himself and then tried to invite himself up to her apartment.

Annnnnnd now we're back to "objectification itself isn't bad, but it can be when it makes people to bad things". Like hope, and love. Okay. So don't let objectification, hope, and love make you do bad things, but that's no reason to uniformly condemn objectification, hope, and love.

So, do you have any reason for believing that Luke's objectifying these scientists has made him do bad things?

Posted by: Stephen, Lord of the flies | July 18, 2010 11:30 PM

But ethics is not a logic-free zone, and I will not treat it as such.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 18, 2010 11:30 PM

lukeprog @242

That's a kind of vague objection, but I'll do the best I can with it.

First of all, we'll start from a simple point, which is that it's very obvious to see multiple very problematic and indeed "wrong" aspects of your list of sexy. It is easy once one steps away from their privilege or one was born into or ended up in a place where such privilege has either been stripped away or laid bare and obvious. As such, to many women, feminists, and men who have already been through that part of consciousness such as PZ Myers, these problems become obvious even though to you, they remain clouded.

They do so owing to privilege. Being feminist-inclined, I trust you already understand at least on a basic level privilege and how it can hide what is obvious to those who lack it. If you need help, refer to the video about disability rights, because it was educational specifically about privilege.

So, now on that point, many of the objectionable factors have been repeatedly brought up (which likely owes to Mattir's irritation on having to repeat herself).

We can list several now:

Number one: Objectification of women, treating them as sex objects first, women second, comes off as skeezy and sexist and otherwise contributes to a culture where women are judged based on physical attractiveness in the workplace, including in the sciences and where sexual harassment and dismissal of women is directly attributable for the low amount of women in the sciences.

Not only that, but this is the same culture that means that any YouTube-esque video a man puts up will have jackasses, but they'll mostly be about the topic, whereas women will have endless comments about how hot and fuckable they are or how ugly and dykey they are, regardless of topic and regardless of number of trolls. This may seem flattering, but it quickly wears one down and makes one retreat from the public space which is bad for us all.

Number two: Violation of consent. You willfully used photos of women not intended for sexual arousal (including what look like faculty photos and personal flickr streams) in order to enroll women in an e-beauty contest against their will. Leaving aside the AutoAdmit problem, let's get into that big word, consent.

See consent is a big thing, consent is something often denied to women thanks to the rape culture. Their bodily autonomy is seen culturally as public property and that feeds into how they are treated sexually by partners and how seriously their male partners take their consent and subsequently withdrawal of consent.

As such taking these photos without consent from the internet to use for your own purposes would certainly be hard to prevent and might even be legal (but I'm not entirely sure that's actually the case, especially for the faculty photos), but it certainly isn't moral and feeds into that culture that women are very familiar with, wherein their consent is seen as secondary to the very important issue of getting men off.

Such a culture is the rape culture and makes the posts kinda stalkerish and skeevy at best.

Number three: Reinforcement of the beauty myth. Not entirely worthy of consideration because people can't help what they are attracted to, but selling the page as definite article sexy in your atheist post definitely served its purpose in reinforcing the impossible beauty standard for women.

Number four: How it ties to how women are treated in the workplace. Hiring (unfairly) and so on are often directly affected by sex and can be directly affected by things like "fuckability" owing to cultural sexism. Not only does this mean that female scientists are painfully aware of being treated like fuckable meat first, scientist second, but it means that things like being used for an online beauty contest can directly affect their career with sexist bosses. It's unfair because these actions wouldn't be because of you, but you asked for an answer on wrong aspects of your post.

Number five: How it ties into public harassment. There have been many many posts in the feminist blogosphere about public harassment and how it effects women. Basically, how it's not flattering, how it's often threatening when women refuse to accept it as flattering, how it can turn into public assault. There have been posts noting that how they dress or look don't effect cat-calls and how it's mostly about public domination of the space and it directly affects what women feel they can wear or where they can walk in public.

Not only is your post a form of cat-call, "hey baby, your facebook profile is so hot", but it also limits female safety online. A woman who didn't want to be part of this circle jerk and found out about it would now feel threatened about all the pictures of herself online, especially in light of things like AutoAdmit and the stalkers that spawned.

Already women have noted this thread that things like that are the reason they don't post photos online.

You hear that? No facebook friend tagging, no flickr streams of vacation photos to show far off friends and family, no personal photos on blogs or in promoting their professional work. All because of people like you. That sucks right?

Number six: Unwanted sexual advances or comments and how they depress female involvement in things like atheism. In theWoman Problem thread here, many women noted that one of the big reasons they don't participate in atheist conferences or the community in general is owing to being tired of fending off unwanted sexual advances and harassment. Indeed, I was assaulted at a conference entirely because I hadn't properly prepared to be fending off unwanted sexual advances.

They talked about how it made them feel less comfortable or directly unwelcome. How it would make them feel like they were being regarded as entertainment rather than participants, an attitude often directly stated by invited guests.

They talked about how they didn't feel like they were ever taken seriously, how it made them feel like they had to fight for basic humanity or respect and most importantly how having the same arguments they would have at home, at work, or in public spaces in places meant to go to during free time just wasn't worth it for them as it would mean wasting precious free time.

As such, having "fun" fuckability lists is directly alienating to many women who stumble upon it. Some might not mind it, some might even like it. A number might try and ignore it or actively avoid it. Most will just see it as a "male-only space" that's being guarded as such and not return.

As we saw in the Woman Problem thread, if we want to see atheism move beyond it's heavy testosterone focus, we need to stop alienating women with stuff like this.

Number seven: Sexist viewpoints that women are for fucking not for thinking is one of the biggest barriers to accepting female academics, especially in the sciences. Want female scientists? Stop contributing to the culture that views them as fuckbunnies first even if they go through the literal hell of breaking into the male-dominated sciences.

Number eight: It's wrong for reasons you should want for purely selfish reasons.

More women in atheism and the sciences, means more women around who share your interests and might be interested in hanging out, becoming friends, or even becoming more than friends.

Even more selfishly, not putting off women by being skeevy means more women might like you for the parts of your personality that aren't skeevy. I mean, look at how much my opinion of you changed when I saw that you were at least trying a little to move past being a run-of-the-mill sexist.

Most selfishly of all, women who don't feel on-guard about their sexuality, like they have to defend it from unwanted advances, creepy long-range leering, and having their photos used for things like this are...

Wait for it...

Mor likely to be comfortable about their sexuality. Do you like women getting naked? Do you like having better access to naked photos or actual naked people, perhaps even naked people interested in getting physical? Then stop skeeving them out and making them feel on-guard about what sorts of pictures they leave around the internet. If you resist the urge to be all skeevy and post "sexy" photos you found around the internet, more women will feel comfortable leaving around sexy images because there won't be a social cost.

Aka, it will directly help your libido to be less aggressive about it. If evolution had more to do with this than culture, you'd have expected everyone to have figured that out by now.

Now as you can see, it was pretty easy for me to put together this list and I was born in a male body and raised as male in this diseased culture. To others, it is just as easy. Indeed it is easy to behold to most women and a number of men. Even dedicated patriarchy defenders like Sarah Palin can see something skeevy with being rated in "fuckable or not" terms, even though she lacks the vocabulary or sanity to adequately address it without being a complete moron.

Maybe it's not easy to you owing to your privilege. That's because you haven't had to live in a culture where this sort of shit happens every day, where you have to put up with it at work, in every ad on the street, in the casual conversations with male friends and lovers, in your internet searches when you get home, in the movies and media you watch or listen to or read, and so on.

For those of us on the female side of the fence, it is dreadfully common and thus obvious, just as you would likely recognize your own pair of shoes in a pile of others or your own car in a row of parked cars.

Familiarity breeds familiarity and in this case, contempt.

And I must hesitate here and post some small dismay that you seem to be drifting away from reading and growing and towards debate club bullshit where anything not placed into a proper format must be instantly discounted and where proper argumentation matters more than the actual facts and experiences being discussed.

I would urge you to resist that path.

Because it makes people assholes.

Just some friendly advice and I hope this answers your vague request.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 18, 2010 11:33 PM

I'll attribute it to the 1 to 2% of neandertal DNA and make no further apologies.

So easy a caveman can do it.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 18, 2010 11:42 PM

Wow, a lot of you are acting like children. Like ones who go "eww" when they see someone unnatractive in a bathing suit, as if other peoples bodies exist for judgement and examination.

None of you dudes have any idea what it is like to walk around in that level of scrutiny CONSTANTLY. Random strangers, all asserting that they are qualified to judge the VALUE of my body because I had the nerve to exist as a woman. It says to me that my body doesn't actually belong to me, that what I actually feel and experience in it has nothing to do with how sexy I am according to most people, it is based on how well I resemble what beauty is called in a magazine. The definiton of beauty in our society is just as arbitrary and changing as in any other, there isn't anything sacred or inherent in what most people believe beauty to be. I sure don't get a say in what beauty means, a huge marketing machine (along with a bunch of dudes who get some kind of power trip out of insulting non beauty 2K compliant women) decides it for me, and announces it every day. If I dress attractively I get harassed for that, and if I don't then I get harassed for that instead. Everyone thinks its a grand idea to judge me in this way, even though there is all this baggage that goes along with body image and women in this culture, too. It is a constant source of pain for me. I want to be as unremarkable as men, I just want to live my life and not be seen as a source of sex for strangers, or as an example to be humiliated in order to scare the rest of the women into trying to be attractive. You get dumped on no matter what you do, and being put on a sexy list is as far from a compliment as you could possibly get. Ugly and beautiful in our culture are two different sides of the same coin, with risks and benefits for each that both support the idea that [b]women are here to please men[/b], in this case it is about visually pleasing them. Why the hell do they get to decide all of this for me? I am the one affected by it.

And you know what? There are a lot of people who care a lot more about intimacy and *FEEL* than looks. Sexuality isn't a 2D thing that is experienced only through vision, it is a whole lot of complex sensations that vary in importance from person to person. The pervasiveness of pornography has made this very basic concept a muddled and not so obvious to the general population. A picture can never adequately portray sexuality, it is so much more than how we look. It cheapens both women and human sexuality to frame attraction in such narrow terms.

Posted by: Teshi | July 18, 2010 11:44 PM

What Cerberus #282 said times several billion.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 11:46 PM

snurp,

Nope, I really thought the post you made had excellent points.

You'll notice that, for example, with Cerebrus I've gone back and forth between praise and condemnation. When Cerebrus makes good points I praise, and when Cerebrus attacks strawmen I condemn. Nothing mysterious about that.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 18, 2010 11:48 PM

lukeprog-

I would tap my foot annoyingly and note that while you claim that you see cultural oppression as well, you still claim a biological basis that "men would be pursuers" and "women would be receivers" owing to the fact that men have more "invested interest" in propagating the species.

This is, naturally, complete bullshit. Not only is this something that has nothing to do with any aspect of sexual separations, evolution, or anything else scientific, it also would only make sense as an argument if you a) parroted what someone else told you, b) badly mangled what you were trying to say, or more likely c) you believe there is an inherent, biological difference in sex drive between men and women.

Such a difference is not only unfounded and a very popular evo-psych claim, but it is also deeply sexist and the main argument for a lot of sexual oppression in the bedroom and rape-culture because women should put out when they aren't horny owing to the "natural" separation in libidos. Similarly this is used to great consternation to make men who feel they are less sexual than female partners "emasculated" and women who are more sexual than male partners "like sluts", despite this occurring about half the time minus abusive relationships.

It has also been used to justify the rape culture.

Regardless of what you, personally, use it for, propagating this myth directly aids and strengthens those sexist oppressions and perhaps more importantly for a man who prides himself on his logic abilities, would be believing in unsubstantiated woo.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 18, 2010 11:53 PM

Stephen, Lord of Flies,

You wrote:

Several times now (eg #112 #199 and #229) you've trotted out the line that attractiveness is biologically determined. Even if that were true (which I doubt, given the strong cultural aspect of attractiveness) it has no relevance to a discussion on whether it is appropriate to publicly discuss and judge someone on their attractiveness. Why do you keep referring to irrelevant points if you want to treat this logically?

Yup, I never said that normative facts could be inferred from the facts about biology and attractiveness. In fact, I specifically denied it at least twice. I brought up those facts because Cerberus and others made the claim that what men see as attractive is culturally determined, or something like that. I responded with evidence about how biology seems to determine to a great deal what men see as attractive. As it turns out, Cerberus may agree more than we first thought. But yeah, nothing normative directly follows from these facts of biology, and I never made such a claim.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 18, 2010 11:57 PM

They're light and fun and silly to me. None of the women in my life have a problem being called sexy, because they know I'm not a creepy guy who is going to stalk them or make unwanted advances. So I post the list of sexy scientists, like so many frivolous posts before it.

2. I get hit with a tsunami of criticism, most of it incoherent babbling, but some of it hinting that I might really be a dumbshit about feminism, despite my obvious commitments to basic things like gender equality.

Oh forgive me for not seeing how obviously comitted you are to gender equality after you just explained how you assumed that you knew what female strangers would think about you commenting on their sexuality, and then decided that your intent was way more important than any possible effect it could have on others.

Not only that, but you treated women like borg (the ones I know are cool with it, so ones I don't know will be too! Because they are women and I know what women are like, they aren't like individuals with different preferences or anything, right?) You actually go on to illustrate that with this:

. The situation is confused by a number of women who defend the post as being exactly what I originally thought it was: lighthearted fun

How is that confused? Sexism is contributing to the oppression of women. We don't all have to agree for it to be sexism, dude. There isn't anything confusing about women having diverse opinions unless you assume that they are some group that you have Othered in your own mind.

I'll get to the rest of the post later...

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 18, 2010 11:59 PM

Bah! Sleep now sleep! Stupid internet addiction is ruining my life.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 19, 2010 12:03 AM

Another random anecdote, since those seem to be making better progress than the arguments he claims he wants:

As a trans woman, the issue of beauty, of conforming to sexualized ideas and the thing line of being fucked over, has extra dimensions.

First up, I must meet some arbitrary standard of womanness to "pass". But ho, that arbitrary standard is really weird and can vary. Sometimes I can pass with absolutely no effort (and I mean, no effort and "masculine clothes"), sometimes lots of effort is counterproductive.

But then, I also have to meet an entirely different arbitrary standard of womanness when I talk with a psychologist to get the meds to keep my hormones in check or pursue eventual surgery.

And then, there is the matter of beauty. If I am "ugly", then I must be a brick, unable to ever pass, a tragic heroine, fooling none about her "real sex" in others eyes. This can be dangerous. I'm warned if I look to freaky, then those who are freaked out by me will kill me for being a "freak faggot".

Ok, but then there is the other side, do to well, "pass to well" and suddenly, I'm the "other trannie", the deceiver. The one who tricks men into being sexually attracted to them by daring to "emulate" femininity too well. And someone so "tricked" would of course be justified in killing me for being a "freak faggot" who dared give them a momentary attraction.

And the funny thing about those two stereotypical extremes that could get me killed? They actually overlap. As I said about passing without any effort? I'm actually much more on the brick side and I can still get a semi-reliable ma'am, pre-hormones. And I said before that I was molested at a conference, attracting someone despite no affirmative body language or even effort towards attracting someone in appearance or dress.

The line between, how dare you attract me, die, and how dare you confuse me, die is a thin and wavy thing and adds another element to how dangerous public appraisal of us can be to our direct safety.

And also how the whole women's body is public property angle, already fraught in cis-women's societies (and believe me I'm not knocking how rough my cis-friends have it), has an extra edge to it that makes the games of who's hot and who's not a potential "ha, ha, you liked a man" instigation to murder or a "ha, ha, you'll never be a woman" instigation to suicide...or murder.

Another anecdote for consideration.

Posted by: Furcas | July 19, 2010 12:09 AM

PZ wrote:

Objectification is always bad, mmm-K? It's always a cognitive short cut that gives short shrift to the other person. If Brad Pitt is driving your cab, and you are thinking to yourself, "That's one handsome man at the wheel", you are objectifying him. It's not bad because you're necessarily thinking bad thoughts about him, it's bad because you're thinking shallowly.

PZ, my main goal in this thread was to have you give a clear definition of objectification and to say that you condemn it; not say that you condemn things that it might make some people do in some situations, but that you condemn objectification itself, which you've finally done.

Objectification as you've defined it is so obviously unavoidable and necessary for human beings (hell, for intelligent beings in general), and it is so obviously harmless, that I'm confident that anyone who reads the above distillation of your point of view and makes a decent effort at thinking rationally about this will conclude that you're being completely crazy.

My advice to you is to stick to squids and atheism as blogging topics.

Posted by: Teshi | July 19, 2010 12:13 AM

@PZ #286

If Brad Pitt is driving your cab, and you are thinking to yourself, "That's one handsome man at the wheel", you are objectifying him. It's not bad because you're necessarily thinking bad thoughts about him, it's bad because you're thinking shallowly.

Same thing if it's a woman, and you're thinking "Nice tits".

I just want to point out that PZ has compared two comments that are not really equal. "That's one handsome man" is, although still objectification, quite a respectful way of putting it-- it takes the man as a physical whole, focusing on the face, and expresses itself in formal language.

The women's equivalent, "Nice tits", does neither of these things: it takes only one aspect of the woman-- not her face and something with loaded sexual connotations-- and expresses it in course language.

I'm sorry to be so picky, but even in this comment the man for some reason gets privileged. I'm sure PZ did not mean to do this, but nevertheless, there it is.

At the very least, it is a poor comparison in levels of objectification. Imagine the comment, "That woman is stunningly beautiful" as an equivalent formal and whole objectification. Use your imagination for the man's informal and sexualized version.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 19, 2010 12:14 AM

Cerberus,

You don't believe there is an inherent, biological different in sex drives between men and women????

You can't be serious. What do you mean by that? I must be misunderstanding you.

Posted by: echidna | July 19, 2010 12:17 AM

Furcas opined:

My advice to you is to stick to squids and atheism as blogging topics.

Shove it. Take PZ to task all you like, but telling anybody what to write about on their own blog is just too arrogant for words.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 19, 2010 12:20 AM

My advice to you is to stick to squids and atheism as blogging topics.

In movements that burble up from the masses, opening up the discussion in such a way that parts of the great unwashed hoard that might not feel like they are valued enough to want to participate is, I think, the only way to open the door to them should they want to come in.

Frankly both science and atheism draw from this mass of human beings. And the more that people perceive themselves as even receiving empathy, whether or not that empathy acts as a perfect voice for them (and frankly they don't need anyone else's voice anyway), the more they may be willing to participate.

So no, I don't think that PZ needs to stick to anything but things he wants to because AFAIK he's done a great job of making both science and atheism more accessible to me.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 19, 2010 12:24 AM

Oh god this is going to turn into an evo psych thread isn't it?

I'm out.

Out out out out out!

Biological difference? Sure. I won't disagree. I just don't think it accounts so well for the results we see.

I thought I hated sex and that was natural for women, but it turns out I just hate being woken up by dick being shoved into my unconscious body and I didn't know that wasn't normal.

Until all women know the difference I'm not that convinced by the biological differences.

Posted by: Palaverer | July 19, 2010 12:28 AM

I disagree with PZ's assertion that objectification is always bad. I think it was on Luke's blog that someone posted this link explaining an alternate view of objectification.

But I feel very welcome at this blog, I appreciate PZ's hosting this discussion (it seems to be going better over here than it did at Luke's place) and my already high estimation of PZ has shot through the roof.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 19, 2010 12:33 AM

Teshi,

Luke, in fact, the most offensive thing you are doing is right here in this thread. You are claiming you wish to hear arguments and then when you are receiving them you are attempting to rebut them using logic that ignores the sociological context. In case you were confused, the sociological context is that women have historically had great difficulty taking control of their sexuality-- having it either diminished or be viewed as their major feature. This difficulty still exists.

No, I'm not ignoring the sociological context. What I'm doing is requiring that if arguments are given, they must actually explain why the conclusion follows from the sociological context along with the other premises of the argument.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 19, 2010 12:36 AM

lukeprog @302

What you did versus what you intended.

You intended not to objectify women and place their perceived sexuality above their accomplishments. Nonetheless, in cultural context, you reinforced exactly that. Furthermore, you reinforced a cultural context wherein no matter what women do in life, they'll be judged as a literal sexual object and masturbatory fodder if they are careless enough to leave photographic evidence exist.

I know what you intended.

You seem to be running away from what you did. And seeking to justify it first and grow as a person second.

I do not appreciate it.

Just as I do not appreciate wasting long hours of my life trying to aid your education as a person and have you piss on it so blatantly. I really wanted to write a blogpost tonight, instead I have been overly kind and devoted my time here instead helping you.

And the thanks I get is you skimming through my post mainly looking for ways to evade taking responsibility for the what you did part of the conversation.

I was thinking very well of you and how you were trying, but I don't appreciate having my hard work and volunteered time treated like so much garbage, especially by someone who claims they want to learn. If you are trolling me, fair enough, but if you are serious about becoming less of a douchebag and more of a feminist, wipe that fucking smirk off your face and do some work too.

Going around demanding in-depth explanations and then waving them off with "meta-ethical" and the skipping of over half my post with absolutely no sign that any of it even began to penetrate or that you even bothered to read it all the way through?

That's openly disrespectful.

What worse, that's openly dismissing women's opinions as inherently invalid.

One of the big early "mischaracterizations" we had of you.

If I'm going to feel at all like my time isn't wasted on you, I need to feel like you give a damn about growing.

Show me that or fuck off.

lukeprog @305

Read this. And before you go on, yeah, it's been debunked. Yes, there is a separation in male and female libido. However, such a separation is not seen as pronounced in animals and more importantly, there is very very strong evidence that the "sexual separation" is almost entirely cultural owing to how female sexuality, sexual women, and women in general are viewed and treated in this society, the effect rape has on future sexual health, including health of libido, the effect abuse has on future sexual health, including health of libido.

Oh yeah, and the fact that being overworked and overstressed leads to artificially lowered libido and the fact that women still end up doing most of the housework, even when they are both working. And let's not forget that marital rape is not a thing of the past and people still feel entitled to their female partner's sexuality which again increases stress and lack of consent artificially lowering libido.

In cultures with less sexism, the libidos of women magically shoot up. Over time, with the successes of feminism, female libidos have magically increased causing panic crises over things like "sex buddies" and "sexting" and the like.

The evidence of a biologically based divide, outside a small variation owing to hormones, have oft been argued for and used to justify all sorts of oppressions.

But given your uncomfortable history on this thread, I'm hesitating on getting too much into gender essentialism with you, because I'll probably end up wanting to twist off your head and shit down your neck if we get into it too much.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 19, 2010 12:41 AM

In the case of this argument I would call the quote from that link an actual case of a strawman argument.

No one here is asserting that the sheer act of desiring some one is wrong.

Familiarity is a key thing here. BTW, I do not like strangers touching my face hair or body. If you are invited to touch these things you can damned sure know you are sexually desired by me at least on some level.

But we're talking about people that one hasn't even had a face to face conversation with, let alone touched them in any way.

And we're talking about them being ranked solely on their body/face in the subjective opinion of a person who belongs to the power holding dominant class of people as he views the object and ranks it.

Posted by: gregvalcourt | July 19, 2010 12:43 AM

Your point is that it's wrong to treat women as sex objects first, and women second. But I did no such thing

But you did ...

The reason I don't mention much else is because the stated topic of the post is their sexiness

Bullshit. The title of your blog post was "15 Sexy Scientists". Not much about these Scientists was mentioned. It was mostly just pictures.

Posted by: pteryxx | July 19, 2010 12:44 AM

2. I get hit with a tsunami of criticism

Shouldn't that, right there, be a clue that yes you've done something offensive? Do you really need 300 posts in exhaustive detail to figure out that you screwed up?

Women in this society are walking around with a flashing scorecard over their heads labeled "Sexiness Rating". They didn't opt in to having it there. They have limited control over the numbers posted on the scoreboard. And most people they interact with, men and women, consciously or not, judge them by their score. Some of them even assume that having a scoreboard over your head means you want to play the game, when really, you're forced to play whether you want to or not.

Posted by: Heathen | July 19, 2010 12:52 AM

Well, Lukefrog may not have learned anything but I sure did. So, the head pounding against the brick wall was not entirely in vain.

Posted by: Terry | July 19, 2010 1:00 AM

@294

Hetero males with wives, mothers, daughters, female friends, etc, may feel the same way. I do.

I know this isn't an argument in the sense that lukeprog is looking for. But seriously, exactly which principle are you standing on here Luke? And is it worth the harm you're doing to your cause?

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 19, 2010 1:09 AM

skeptifem @328

Well, thanks to the Hate Crimes Law passing and the successful conclusion to the Angie Zapata murder, the trans panic defense (at least in America) seems to have been dealt at least somewhat of a blow, though not completely dead.

And there is still a Gay Panic defense that has succeeded until recently which was pretty appalling.

And yeah, change is coming, slowly and it's all connected so fighting other issues helps on it as well.

I choose to remain optimistic despite the statistics in my personal life, while not being willfully dumb to the statistics so I can better fight for the rights of my brothers and sisters.

But yeah, I mentioned it for a rather...stark...look at some of the dangerous baggage that can circulate around something as "innocuous" as a list of sexiness. In the trans community, being thought of as sexy by the wrong person, or worse having that person fear others might notice he found you sexy can be very very dangerous.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 19, 2010 1:15 AM

Cerberus your thoughts are never wasted here. You brought up something I hadn't thought about too when you talk about the unique problems that come up for trans-women as an outgrowth of the same problems the rest of us deal with. I think I could have sussed it out, but you make it visceral and immediate which is how it really is. It's something real people are having to deal with right now, and it fucking sucks.

Society has a long ass way to go when it comes to trans people but I have confidence we'll get further along.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 19, 2010 1:59 AM

okay, so I said I would get to the rest of the post later...

4. I ask a bajillion clarifying questions of my critics, and find that very few of them actually have any arguments in mind, or know much what an argument looks like. Still, the anecdotes and perspectives is enlightening.

There is a massive body of feminist theory for you to look through, even if the posters here were (somehow) completely incoherent in their explanations.

5. Seeking clarity, I start reading a philosophical paper on the topic that is recommended to me by a reader. Its precision promises to make clear some of the arguments that might be available to either side, but I haven't finished it yet.

uh, k. Yeah, its the feminists here that don't know what an argument looks like...

7. Throughout all this, about 1/3 of all posts blatantly misrepresent my explicitly stated views. I criticize these strawmen in the hopes that amidst the sound and fury a few useful, coherent points will be made.

I have an inkling that the way your post is 'misrepresented' means that women who experience sexism interpreted it as sexism. Your intent doesn't get to police that. Deal with it.

8. Useful, coherent points are made, along with additional perspective, beginning to lift me out of my agnosticism, though I'm still awaiting my read of the Nussbaum article and some others, and also Sheril's response coming on Monday.

Spoiler alert: it isn't going to be fun to decide that feminists were right about this, so it is not going to go down the way you think. Sheril's post isn't going to be what really makes you decide that women were worth listening to on this. It comes down to your integrity- there are countless ready made arguments for you to keep your sense of privilege, and sometimes women make em for you. Deciding to really think about this issue critically is what will lead to deciding that feminism is worth researching, not what any particular objectified woman has to say on the matter.

Posted by: rubber-glue | July 19, 2010 2:15 AM

I lurk here a lot but I just want to say thank you to everyone here who gave me a lot of information and links to information about sexism and more.

Posted by: BrianX | July 19, 2010 2:33 AM

No, that isn't all. I agree about the atheist list -- completely missing the goddamn point. The scientist list is sorta-kinda understandable, since it's explicitly juxtaposing brains and looks (though that doesn't really ameliorate the discomfort factor). The atheist list is all cheesecake shots and doesn't seem to serve any purpose at all.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | July 19, 2010 5:02 AM

Ol'Greg: I hear ya (in your response to my one word comment of 'Boobquake'). I would like to think, though, that at the end of the day, that if someone had posted an involuntary pic of you somewhere and people ooh-ed and ah-ed, you would have the strength of character and perseverance to say, 'We live in a weird, hormone-driven society, but I still have a brain and know how to use it and that's all that really matters.' I have a feeling that the ladies in the link, being in the top echelon of clever people of the world, would have that kind of reaction. It may suck for a moment, but it's not going to undermine their achievements or desire to do good things in their fields and that's all a person can ask of themselves in the face of the less nobler aspects of human behaviour.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 19, 2010 5:20 AM

So wait, did we work out why there are so few women in the atheist movement yet?

Posted by: Mephit | July 19, 2010 5:23 AM

341# Nope, it's still a complete mystery...

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 19, 2010 5:43 AM

Can somebody please post a list of black guys with the biggest dicks in atheism. The world need to know.

Some of my best friends are black.

Posted by: dezinerau | July 19, 2010 6:12 AM

d how, whenever this happens, a whole lot of other men come out of the woodwork and say stuff like "Lighten up, it's only harmless fun!" or "Can't you take a compliment?" or something equally clueless and patronising.

To the credit of this site, the majority of men commenting are on the feminist side on this. Still, it's hardly a representative demographic of society.

Some of my best friends are black.

But do they have big dicks? Otherwise what good are they?

Posted by: John Morales | July 19, 2010 6:29 AM

lukeprog:

You may think you've offered argument already, but to me an argument is a set of premises from which a conclusion can be validly or strongly inferred.

Wrong.

Argument.

It's apparent why you've failed to recognise those you've been given.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | July 19, 2010 6:54 AM

Folks? Help me out, please. You did a terrific job ridding me of my reactionary, libertarian notions (and I needed that). I have some more assumptions that badly need debunking.

I happen to be sitting in Abu Dhabi right now, where I am getting ready to give a an IT training class to a couple dozen engineers from AD, Dubai, and the UK. I'm a geek girl... OK, I'm a bit long in the tooth to call myself a "girl" I guess. Despite that I'm fat enough to make me feel like I need to apologize to people I sit next to on airplanes, I'll never see forty again, and I'm mildly Aspie, I am better than average looking, and ladylike in the way queens used to be when they had to run a castle and wait for the King to come back from the border wars. In my hotel, it's hilarious to look one of the Lords of the Universe (the sheikhs in headscarves) smack dead in the eyes and watch the shock take over, kind of like the strip where Dilbert wore the pheromone cologne. LOL.

This thread hurts me, but I realized that pain is usually a sign of something wrong... something not in line with reality. This is the matrix of ideas I'm dealing with:

- Men (and women) are sexually attracted to what they find beautiful (GOOD)
- Everyone needs to have relationships with people who love them (GREAT)
- Men (and women) have pretty much the same idea of what is beautiful, due to various biological imperatives (FINE)
- Most men and women would fail to find a fat, geeky forty-year-old woman pretty (HARSH, BUT FINE IF I BUY THE FIRST TWO PREMISES)
- I have to be conscious of the fact that people think I'm unattractive and that consciousness painfully informs every interaction, like a headache (BAD)
- I'll never compete successfully when the majority of women are more attractive than me (UH... WRONG?)
- I'm worthless and undesirable not only because of the way I look but because the consciousness of it makes me act like I'm worthless and undesirable (UM... I DON'T KNOW)
- I'm too depressed most days to leave the house, let alone go out and try to date, because I don't want to deal with how it feels to know people hate looking at me and think bad things about me (WHOA, WHAT, THAT'S CRAZY TALK... IT IS, ISN'T IT?)

Depression is the obesity of conversation, isn't it? :) Then I apologize... but I don't know where to find another collection of obviously rational people to ask.

Posted by: John Morales | July 19, 2010 7:10 AM

badgersdaughter,

I'm too depressed most days to leave the house ...

Have you sought medical examination so as to rule out biological aggravating factors that may be treatable?

Posted by: bastion of sass | July 19, 2010 7:24 AM

I've been trying to write a cogent comment, and so far, every draft fails to clearly say what I want to say.

But if I could sum it up as briefly as I can:

IMO, if you look at the benefit vs. harm that lukeprog's blog list might produce, most of the benefits go to luke (i.e. His pleasure, his ego, his blog hits.)

OTOH, the most serious harm would be to the women on the list, women in general, and society as a whole. (Although lukeprog is also harmed because some now think he's creepy, rude, and sexist.)

Based on that immense and terrible imbalance, I don't see why there's any question about whether that post is ethical or not.

And Luke, whether or not your list can be ever justified in any way, an ethical life is not all about you, you, you.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 19, 2010 7:37 AM

This would all be so much simpler if being sexy wasn't so much of a threat all the time. Why the heck can't the straight guys just say "Thanks but no thanks" if a gay guy ogles them, instead of having to beat him up or kill him?

I just got done reading this book after seeing it recommended a few hundred times everywhere, and one statement from it has been running through my mind while thinking about the objections to this list. Paraphrased, it's something like this: "At the core, what men fear most from women is to be laughed at. At the core, what women fear most from men is to be killed." (Lest anyone think that's outrageous hyperbole, it was prefaced by statistics such as the fact that in the US, an average of three women a day are killed and another 600 are sexually assaulted. Every day.)

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 19, 2010 7:45 AM

badgersdaughter - come on over to the endless thread, where we talk about all things of the sort.

Posted by: Egg Fu Laura | July 19, 2010 8:01 AM

It seems to me like this Luke guy made a stupid fluff piece and is now trying to justify it so he doesn't appear "skeevy" in front of his peers. It completely lacked originality, imagination, or any sort of rational thought process. If it were me, I would have been embarrassed by the whole ordeal, but THIS guy refuses to take responsibility for his own actions and instead attempts to intellectualize his post by debating in the comments section of his obvious idol. Congrats, Luke, for creating such a hullabaloo out of nothing. That's the true blogger spirit! Go off and wax philosophical for a while. I can't WAIT to see what nonsense you'll come back with. I doubt many will be fooled by your faux revelations...

Posted by: Ray Moscow | July 19, 2010 8:21 AM

I'm late to this thread, but perhaps we could just say that this was a stupid and shallow list, fit for a "lad mag" perhaps but not an atheism or science blog? Perhaps Luke didn't mean to lower the credibility of his blog, but that's what happened.

IMO, Luke should take down the post, replace it with "Sorry -- this was a stupid idea, and I've deleted it", and go on from there.

Or, perhaps just rename the blog to "lad mag atheism"?

Posted by: ERV | July 19, 2010 8:27 AM

ERV-- When you freak out about 'OHHHHH SOMEONE MADE A LIST!', it makes it harder for ME as a WOMAN to deal with real gender/sexism issues because its hard to be taken seriously when a bunch of dipshits are out there yelling 'WOLF!! SEXISM!!!'

Carlie-- Bullshit... ignoring "the little things" in favor of "the big stuff" makes the big stuff that much harder to eradicate...

I dont know what version of 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf' youve been reading, but Ive never read one where the boy found a den of little wolf pups, cried 'WOLF!' and the town ignored him, and then the pups grew up into big wolves and ravaged the town.

Generally, the story is about a little boy who is an attention whore who runs around screaming 'WOLF!!!' because of all the positive attention he gets from it, and then no one believes him when a real wolf shows up.

A list of 'SEXAH SCIENTISTS!' isnt a 'little problem' that grows up to be a 'big problem'. Its a 'non-problem'. Its a stupid funny thing that everyone rightly recognized was a stupid funny thing when it was done to males, but now that there are poor delicate defenseless w00myns involved, people feel it necessary to jump on their white horses and scream 'WOLF!'

Carlie-- I'm sure that ERV would much rather everyone else sit back, drink a Pepsi or ten...
What does Pepsi have to do with this? Do you disagree with my stance that demonizing foods as 'BAD!' and that adopting the woo-theory of Alcoholics Anonymous that never enjoying some foods ('BAD!') is the Golden Road to anorexia, or making people feel guilty about their food choices ('YOU DRINK THIS, YOU ARE BAD!') leads to bulimia? That the only healthy option is understanding how to balance all kinds of foods and drinks you like, no matter what they are? Im sorry, I assumed a feminist like yourself would care about female body issues.

But what does 'Pepsi' have to do with the conversation, other than highlighting your false-feminist position? Oh, I get it, you dont really give a shit, you just want to be an asshole.

Then just be an asshole, like this asshole.
Cerberus-- In contrast to ERV's whine...
Dont try to actually think logically about this or anything, though.

And thanks for addressing my point too, PZ. CRITICAL THINKING! YAY!!

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 19, 2010 8:38 AM

I would like to think, though, that at the end of the day, that if someone had posted an involuntary pic of you somewhere and people ooh-ed and ah-ed, you would have the strength of character and perseverance to say, 'We live in a weird, hormone-driven society, but I still have a brain and know how to use it and that's all that really matters.

Actually no. I'd be pissed. I know I have a brain, but that IS NOT ALL THAT MATTERS and that's life. That is simply acknowledging reality.

I'm tired of this sexist denialist position, and that means you ERV too. Until the consequences are the same the two things will not be the same.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 19, 2010 9:00 AM

What does Pepsi have to do with this?

What Pepsi has to do with it is that you're making the exact same categorical error here that you did there. You're dismissing valid concerns regarding the overall attitude towards a certain issue as frivolous and overreactive simply because you personally don't see a problem with it and you refuse to see how things in a culture are connected. If a problem isn't slapping you directly in the face, you seem to think that it doesn't exist and anyone who thinks it does is "crying wolf". Here, I'll diagram it for you. You can substitute "corporate shilling at a scienceblog" or "objectifying women just because it's fun" as needed.

Person or group does thing X.
Bunch of people: Hey, thing X is problematic, because it is what props up thing Y, which we all agree is a really big issue. So if you don't want to support thing Y, it's a good idea to stop doing thing X.
Defenders of X: You're being so sensitive! Stop complaining! This isn't bad at all!
Bunch of people: Here are numerous arguments and data supporting the fact that thing X does in fact directly contribute to the existence of thing Y.
Defenders: But thing X is thing X. It isn't thing Y.
Bunch of people: They're the same thing in different degrees, and we've just spent an entire day detailing how X supports Y.
Defenders: You're an asshole.

What you're saying is that if I'm not punching you in the face, it's ok if I'm poking you repeatedly in the arm because hey, it's not punching you in the face, right? If you tell me to stop poking you repeatedly in the arm, you're crying wolf and no one will listen to you if I then punch you in the face. In your view, complaining about arm-pokers is therefore making the world safe for face-punchers, rather than trying to create an environment in which assaulting someone at all is bad.

Posted by: toth | July 19, 2010 9:36 AM

Seriously, PZ? You're criticizing a list of "15 sexy scientists" for being shallow? Of course the author threw out woman scientists who s/he didn't find sexy--it's a list of sexy women. That's like criticizing someone who's making a list of brunette scientists for throwing out all the eminently qualified blonde scientists. I think your heart is in the right place, PZ, but I think you're really overreacting to this.

Also: "Or better yet, have the women explain what it means to be sexy, because men tend to be very poor judges of such phenomena."

Say what?

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 19, 2010 9:56 AM

Seriously, PZ? You're criticizing a list of "15 sexy scientists" for being shallow?

Presumably because he is reacting to the author's definition of sexy?

I think your heart is in the right place, PZ, but I think you're really overreacting to this.

370+ comments says you're wrong. People clearly have an opinion on the matter, and no amount of soothing platitudes are going to stop that.

Also: "Or better yet, have the women explain what it means to be sexy, because men tend to be very poor judges of such phenomena."

Say what?

Presumably, ask them what it takes/means to feel sexy, rather than to be labelled sexy.

Posted by: ERV | July 19, 2010 10:05 AM

What Pepsi has to do with it is that you're making the exact same categorical error here that you did there.
I like how I was 'wrong' on the Pepsi thing, but no one could tell me why, and now Im 'wrong' on this issue, and no one can tell me why.

Why is it okay to scream 'SEXISM!!!' when some random blogger makes a list of 'SEXAH WOOMYNS!' but it was not sexist (and was actively encouraged) when some random blogger made a list of 'SEXAH MEENS!'? Why is this 'A VEERY SERIOOOS ISSUE!' when w00myn are involved, but when MEN were involved, it was silly fun?

How is that not the very definition of hypocrisy, and it sexist in and of itself?

Not one mother fucking person in almost 400 comments can address that.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 19, 2010 10:06 AM

The more I think about it McCthulhu, the more I realize how conflicted my own personal views would be.

But I tend to think this is even more of a reason not to get too upset with people who get offended.

I had started to reply to say that I might be an unusual case anyway because I have actual body problems and issues. I'm a recovering anorexic, with body dysmorphic leanings. My relationship to my body is already badly damaged and I have to work on that all the time.

What's worse is my problems often pass completely undetected because our culture sort of thinks it's ok.

So, for instance, when I put a pic up of myself... it actually is an act of defiance too against something in myself that is afraid to.

KWIM?

So the reactions to all those things get mixed up because I'm dealing with layers of relationship to "that girl in that picture people recognize as me" and me.

I was actually thinking only a few weeks ago (and in light of this thread I'm so damned glad I didn't) about posting about body issues, and weight loss and gain.

I was going to post an image of myself that would be pretty revealing.

So you see how I might be conflicted. Between being the sort of person who is obsessed with keeping their body to some external idea, trying to claim ownership of my body, trying to be ok with myself publicly, wanting attention because I'm just like that, and so on...

It just isn't simple.

And if it's that complicated for me I have no doubt that it is that complicated for *some* other people and I have a lot of sympathy for their position too.

There's no crusade here to delete Luke's blog so I don't get the upset some people have that it has been criticized.

I know it hurts to get criticized. I just woke up to find myself being picked at. But after I got over the initial emotional reaction it really doesn't matter.

But I'm not so selfish to assume that what position I come to is one that others will or should.

Posted by: Palaverer | July 19, 2010 10:26 AM

ERV, if you think that hasn't been answered, please go back and read all of the links that have been posted, starting with this one.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean one hasn't been established.

Posted by: Gerald Snit | July 19, 2010 10:32 AM

I'd also add that I'm not sure that sexy carries the same connotations when applied to men and women.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | July 19, 2010 10:51 AM

All these threads do is remind me of how I used to make boneheaded ev-psych arguments and misunderstand male privilege (and depress me beyond belief that I can't take that shit back). I only hope that Luke and others will, in time, look back with as much embarrassment as I do at threads like these and work as hard as they can not to be shitty to women. As a man in a patriarchal society it's tough, but where we can't eliminate it we can at least do our best to see it in ourselves and not to defend it.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 19, 2010 11:07 AM

I like how I was 'wrong' on the Pepsi thing, but no one could tell me why, and now Im 'wrong' on this issue, and no one can tell me why.

Actually people addressed you pretty well on both counts.

It's not so much wrong as lacking perspective and over-reacting as if voicing objection to something equals destruction of that thing.

You were addressed repeatedly on the Pepsi blog issue with a range of different viewpoints, but you pushed all of them in to one viewpoint and continued to fight your windmill of OMG PEPSI HATERZ!

Similarly you've ignored most people's posts here, even posted a "taking my ball home" type flounce, and then come back here to say that no one can explain how you're wrong.

No one is telling you how you have to feel about it.

Now why do you have such a problem with listening to other people? Aren't their opinions or feelings valuable like yours? Well... from the looks of your posts maybe not.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 19, 2010 11:16 AM

What bothers me the most about the sexy scientist list is the way it used images of unsuspecting scientists.

QFT.

It bears repeating: it is not okay to include someone in something like this, and pull their name and picture off the internet, without their consent. It's a violation of their privacy, it potentially harms their professional reputation, and, as some people have noted above, it might well encourage stalkers. And many people might well find it demeaning or offensive. Lukeprog didn't bother to ask them first; he simply put this list up for the world to see, without, seemingly, bothering to think about how the people included on it might react.

If people volunteer to be included in a list like this, that's fine. But lukeprog's actions here were thoroughly thoughtless and clueless.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 19, 2010 11:33 AM

The women who do fit that look have to work for it.

Yeah it is complex. You'd think that by often being able to *pass* as such I'd just feel good about myself, but people's relationships are individual, modified by their personal experience. In my case I knew all my life that I escaped much worse treatment based on my looks.

My ability to model, my ability to use my body to attract help... it saved me in a very direct and real way. Even though I didn't *feel* pretty I knew I had enough of what it took to have an edge. And I've been told my whole life that it is of primary importance. That general cultural sentiment has been reinforced in my case by actual results. I have been perceived as "ugly" and I have been perceived as "sexy" and I've gotten to see how much of my survival depends on my ability to look a certain way.

I didn't grow up in a strong supportive environment. I didn't have the privilege of being encouraged to pursue things like science. I was raised in a more misogynistic culture, but I was also raised right here in the USA. Right alongside other people who were brought up differently.

There is no broad brush here that won't erase some of us.

It takes work to push against that, especially recognizing what you may have internalized about yourself.

As I age, or for every pound I gain, I actually perceive a threat to my right to exist in society. Because I know that an important strategy for my survival is passing from me. I have to work to take risks that might trigger those feelings. Because I have to learn to release those feelings if I have any hope of dealing healthfully with my inevitable aging.

That's the personal. But doesn't everyone have a personal story? That's what makes subjective things like this impossible to categorize completely and why I think the discourse is so damned important.

I don't see myself as speaking for others, but I do hope that I can encourage people to speak.

Personally all I see PZ doing with this post is raising the issue so that it can be discussed.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 19, 2010 11:45 AM

Why are we wasting time on him?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 19, 2010 11:52 AM

Why are we wasting time on him?

Because it's a rare opportunity to actually address these things.

I could not do so IRL with very few exceptions. The consequences would be too steep for me. When people in my real life behave this way I have to roll with the punches and take it.

It helps to have even one place where that's not so.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 19, 2010 12:11 PM

badgersdaughter @351

My recommendation is to read Kate Harding's blog, which does a lot of fat-acceptance work and goes very much into debunking cultural myths like "fat women never get dates and are never sexually attractive" and overall has a lot of good stuff on rebuilding self-esteem.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 19, 2010 12:27 PM

Why is this 'A VEERY SERIOOOS ISSUE!' when w00myn are involved, but when MEN were involved, it was silly fun?

What everyone else just said on privilege, but also, where is this mythical list of sexy male scientists that no one commented on? I haven't seen one.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 19, 2010 12:37 PM

What everyone else just said on privilege, but also, where is this mythical list of sexy male scientists that no one commented on? I haven't seen one.

I don't even know if I could post a list like that. It just wouldn't be... the same KWIM? I'd feel compelled to define "sexy" and then I'd feel compelled to write about the people and what I admire in them.

Honestly a little of that could have gone a long way in this case.

Posted by: MrNaglfar | July 19, 2010 12:44 PM

Just to be clear:

1) People seem to think consent was a big problem when it came to the pictures of women. NO ONE raised the same issue about men.

2) People seem to think it was wrong to label women as "sexy". NO ONE raised the same issue about men.

And that, my dear commenters, is sexism. Sexism that people have seen fit to defend and deny.

And before anyone tells me to "read through" this mess of posts; I have. The one's calling sexism on making this list do not contain solid arguments. They do contain a lot of unfounded assertions. They're loudly repeated phrases of "I'm offended and so should you be" and a whole lot of attacking strawmen (the same ones, again and again, that the author refuted using). To top it all off, many of them had the balls to suggest that, despite what he was saying, the author actually thought differently. What that sounds like is a bunch of people who took offense and decided what the author had in mind and refused to have their preconceptions changed. People who are also blind to exhibiting the sexism they display (as per the top of this post).

I saw lots of people calling the author creepy for using photos that these women themselves appear to have posted, which link the reader to their personal page. And before anyone says the word "consent" again, I'd like them to answer me how often they think PZ contacts the authors of the pages he links to before he links to them. I'll guess almost never. I'll also guess you don't ask consent from every single person in each of the pictures you post on your myspace or facebook.

Further, no one ever saw fit to answer the question I posed before either:
How can I talk about a woman's physical attractiveness without being sexist and objectifying her?

Then it even came to trying to rip on evolutionary psychology, which is laughable at best. There is no such thing as non-evolutionary psychology; our psychology comes from a brain which is the product of evolution. Every theory you posit about human psychology is an evolutionary hypothesis. The alternative is creationist psychology. The apparent understanding of current evolutionary psychology around here seems to be so poor I wouldn't expect anything less. It seems like all the information people around here have about it came off the back of a cereal box or something. Or they quickly assume everyone's going to commit the naturalistic fallacy, or that evolutionary psychology tries to justify stereotypes and blah blah blah. We've all seen that kind of drivel before.

That said, I did see a lot of people throwing around a lot of references to how lists like this effect our culture with absolutely no references or data. Just people talking out of their ass, as far as I can see, about something they don't actually understand but think they're completely right about. Which isn't all that surprising when the same people are willing to tell other people what those other people are thinking, and will not be corrected about their assertions.

No one in the "this is sexist" camp appear willing to change their minds. If you think you'd be willing to, I'd gladly like to know what kind of evidence or argument would convince you you were mistaken.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 19, 2010 12:50 PM

I saw lots of people calling the author creepy for using photos that these women themselves appear to have posted, which link the reader to their personal page. And before anyone says the word "consent" again, I'd like them to answer me how often they think PZ contacts the authors of the pages he links to before he links to them. I'll guess almost never. I'll also guess you don't ask consent from every single person in each of the pictures you post on your myspace or facebook.

Oh dear.

Linking to a webpage is not using other people's material without consent. It is quite the opposite in fact, it is directing people to the original source.

And since when did the fact other people use photographs without permission make it OK ?

I will leave others to tear the rest of your drivel apart. It will not be pretty but it will be fun.

Now go away. Your village just called and said they need you back since there is no one else to fill in as idiot.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 19, 2010 12:54 PM

Carlie @397

Well, my google-fu is failing because I can't find a single example.

Though I did find something with sexy male atheists which brought up an interesting comparison:

Here is an objectifying list of Sexy Male Atheists

Here is an objectifying list of Sexy Female Atheists from the same blog.

Note the huge differences. The males often have some other aspects to them that are more highlighted, they are fully clothed for the most part, some in full on suits, and outside a few examples tend to be known for their brains first.

Now, the females, they are porn stars, actresses, and models, they are entirely known by their appearances outside a few example, most of the photos are in various instances of undress and all of them heavily emphasize the cleavage and boobs (the male pictures emphasized the face except for one photo that emphasized a crotch), with a number also making "porn face" (the male faces mostly looked dignified or determined).

Even in two very objectifying posts of men and women, men get to have more character and get to be obviously more than a sexual organ, they get to be complex even when presented entirely as a wank list.

However, the women when objectified are wholly reduced to their sexual level, the list construction makes it clear that women are regarded sexually first, intellectually second and the female readers on top of the cheesecake get to compare themselves once again (Beauty Myth style) to a narrow range of attractiveness involving fake-breasts, airbrushed anorexic bodies, and white, white skin (hell, even the asian is airbrushed to look whiter than an Irishman in winter).

So yeah, even when the problem is fixed in the wrong fucking way, men still come out on top not only because of cultural sexism making objectification carry more sanction to women, but also because men get the corporate softball equivalent to women's objectification MLB World Series.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 19, 2010 12:57 PM

MrNaglfar,

I'm afraid you've pooped your cyberpants, and everyone can see it. You thought it was just a fart, but it was actually a load of shit. You wanted to share the smell, but didn't expect to follow through.

You deserve nothing more than mockery for that tantrum. Nothing more than mockery for your bleating demands that everyone provide mystical "evidence" to demonstrate your - already ably demonstrated - wrongness. Nothing more than mockery, for smearing your electronic faeces all over your stupid, smug, clueless face whilst shouting and posturing.

You are an idiot.

The world would not be in the least diminished by your sudden disappearance into a hole in the ground.

I have nothing for you but insults. And I enjoyed every one. I'm sure that others may try reason, instead. However, you have already demonstrated your ability to ignore such things and pretend that they were not offered.

Posted by: heatherlyh | July 19, 2010 12:57 PM

@Palaverer #382: Exactly. So well said.

@Ol'Greg

Because it's a rare opportunity to actually address these things.

I could not do so IRL with very few exceptions. The consequences would be too steep for me. When people in my real life behave this way I have to roll with the punches and take it.

It helps to have even one place where that's not so.

Yes, yes, yes. The internet CAN be a place where there is a higher level of equality and opportunity. It CAN be a place that is safer to talk about things that are taboo or dangerous in "real life."

It can be wonderful to talk and play and learn and not have to deal with the equivalent of wolf whistles or slurs yelled at you when you cross the street.

And then the "real world" creeps in.

Posted by: pteryxx | July 19, 2010 1:02 PM

Why are we wasting time on him?

Same answer I gave in the other thread:

So others don't have to.

Did we convince Lukeprog, probably not. At best he might remember this burning next time he thinks calling some stranger "sexy" is just a compliment. But other readers have posted their thanks for various links, for good arguments made, for opening their eyes; and several lurkers posted that seeing people step up against sexism has given them heart. So this weekly round of sexism Sisyphus hasn't gone so badly for our side.

We do seem to have a continuing stream of new lurkers speaking up since the Woman Problem thread. Creating a safe space with support seems to be paying dividends.

Posted by: legistech | July 19, 2010 1:04 PM

Yes, men suck at figuring out what is sexy.

Well, yes, that's just because men suck at everything. They're either worse at everything or at best only just as good as women. Except for purely shallow physical things such as opening jars and doing slam dunks.

Anything involving judgment or thought, and men as a group will be typically worse, though they may occasionally be equal to women.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 19, 2010 1:07 PM

And that, my dear commenters, is sexism. Sexism that people have seen fit to defend and deny.

Yes. The reason this is not discussed in the same way is due to sexism. Good job, captain fucking obvious.

Yes. It is sexism. It is all a part of sexism. Because the whole society in which we all live is a sexist one.

However the consequences skew towards female disadvantage in the case of physical objectification. This has been noted, discussed, supported... and you don't want to hear it. Fine. Plug your ears and go "LALALALALA bitches ain't shit! Let's talk about the men!"

Let's talk about the men then. Let's hear all about how common it is for women to harass and rape men because they view their bodies as available for their consumption. Let's hear about how men are made to feel unwelcome in the workplace either because they are too attractive or not attractive enough. Let's hear about how this is a day to day lived occurrence in the majority of men's lives. Let's hear about their struggle to find the perfect outfit that doesn't look "dumpy" but won't get them raped. Let's hear about how if they look too good it will be assumed they aren't good at their job. Let's hear about how they get singled out as "different" and stuck up on blogs to highlight why they're not really "one of us" under the guise of being sexy.

Let's hear all about it, because I know that men must have an equal and identical experience for every single one of a woman's. Because that makes sense.

Because sexism means, after all, pretending that there are no differences between the sexes... except in the case where it proves female inferiority due to biology of course. Isn't that right?

Your concern for the menz is noted, especially considering this was not a list of men being objectified in a way that they are made to deal with ever fucking day of their life.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 19, 2010 1:09 PM

Mr Naglfar @412

That's cause we've already explained it to you, very very thoroughly.

And your projection is fooling no one. It has been more than obvious exactly who has been arguing in bad faith and who has merely repeated the same thing over and over again while refusing to read anyone else's work.

I award you no points and may the Flying Spaghetti Monster have mercy on your quantum.

Posted by: A Listed Lady | July 19, 2010 1:19 PM

Okay, so I had really not wanted to engage in this debate here, but there are a few comments, on both sides of the debate, that are just plain wrong.

@Palaverer #382

When men post lists like this, it’s like saying to an anorexic, “You sure do look pretty and thin today. Good for you, for only eating a piece of lettuce.” It reinforces all the wrong feelings."

I'm sorry, but what? As one of the women included on that list (and yes, I was offended at first by my picture being used without my permission, but it's nothing new and I genuinely don't think he was doing it with the intent to sexualise us - he was just making a list), frankly, I can't help finding that a very strange remark to read. Me being called attractive (alright, yes, it does make me uncomfortable when coming from strangers) is not at all like congratulating an anorexic for starving herself - I eat, healthily and happily, and being happy in my figure and having someone tell me that I'm attractive doesn't reinforce any wrong feelings at all.

The women who do fit that look have to work for it. And it's less because it feels good to look that way, than it feels awful to not look that way. Complimenting them for it is like complimenting them for not spilling hot coffee all over themselves or not stubbing their toes.

I'm sorry, but this simply isn't true. Sure, I put on makeup when I go out most of the time and I like to dress nicely, but I don't really count that as work. I spend a lot more effort and pain on my intellectual endeavours and I'm certainly not insulted to receive compliments on those. It's offensive to assume that women can't be fit looking without torturing themselves to do it. We all have different bodies, thanks to our genes, and it would be wonderful if we could each be happy in our own, but it's not fair to make people with different bodies feel bad about it until that day comes – even if those people happen to be thin. For me, I do exercise occasionally to make myself feel good, but that's the kind of feeling good that comes from all the wonderful chemicals our brain releases when we do physical activity, not anything else. I feel good being healthy because... that's just part of being healthy. You don't want women to be judged on their appearance, then why are you judging them on theirs so much?

@Bernard Bumner #386

Too difficult to type into google when wanking, or a fear of losing wood during the subsequent education?

Christ, it's comments like that that now make me completely disturbed to be included on the list. When I saw it first, sure, I rolled my eyes and gave a minor, “Ick, really?”, but I wasn't actually imagining that it was ever made with those thoughts in mind (and according to the author, it wasn't). I think “sexy” wasn't a good choice of words because of the “sexualised” connotation, but it wasn't a “List of Scientists I Want to Do” it was just a “List of Attractive Scientists”. It seems to be entirely unrelated people that are interpreting it as some sort of masturbatory fantasy list, which is just really disturbing. Wouldn't it be nice to live in the world where you could compliment a women on her physical appearance without it being interpreted as a creepy sexual thing?

Look, I think lists like this are silly, and without informed consent of the people on it, wrong, but I think a lot of the attitudes that people are expressing here are just as sexist as the ones they are trying to combat. Give people the benefit of the doubt: I can't speak for any of the other women on the list, but they could all be very happy, healthy, individuals who aren't overly concerned about their physical appearance, love their academic careers, but probably don't appreciate being called anorexics because of their genes. And give men the benefit of the doubt: they can think women are nice to look at without imaging them in sexual situations. If my partner or myself commented on a person, “Oh they're attractive”, are either of us picturing having sex with them? No, not that I'm aware of, at least. All of these people saying “How dare you make a list for men to lust after”, why are you even thinking that's what the list was for? I didn't think that (although now that I know apparently that is most people's default thought was, I am a little more creeped with our species, thank you all so much).

Women, men, transpeople, why don't we all just stop assuming the worst about other people's thoughts? Yes, I've had some very bad experiences because of my gender, but that doesn't mean I have to view all men as evil, lecherous bastards who are just trying to demean me. No, I don't like being called “sexy” (by people other than my partner), but that's a personal thing, and I know when other people use the word they aren't necessarily trying to make me feel like I'm somehow not also an intellectual being. Not all men are shallow pigs and not all thin women are meaningless slaves to media attention. We don't have to like everybody or even to respect them, but at least we should respect that we can't really know their thoughts and motivations, so let's not assume the worst just because we can.

Posted by: byronjgrant | July 19, 2010 1:20 PM

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/

Dr. Kirshenbaum has put up a response, and she's being nice about it.
Reading down, however, I noted that she's already receiving the harassment in the comments of her blog that was mentioned in the whole consent issue.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | July 19, 2010 1:28 PM

I object to this list of sexy scientists because several of those are at 6s at best. In fact, I'd only say I'm pretty sure that about four of them are "sexy".

And THATS just SO FEMINIST. When did your commentors go retarded, PZ? Christ on a stick Im not leaving my blog anymore.

If you are so offended and 'creeped out' by this, I strongly suggest you disconnect your computer from the internet and never leave the house, cause reality only goes downhill from here.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 19, 2010 1:40 PM

Women, men, transpeople, why don't we all just stop assuming the worst about other people's thoughts? Yes, I've had some very bad experiences because of my gender, but that doesn't mean I have to view all men as evil, lecherous bastards who are just trying to demean me.

Well, first off, no one was saying you should view all men that way. Not a single person. It makes me think you are not who you say you are when you talk like that, and some of the other things that you say are suspect as well. Just a hunch.

Next, sometimes assuming the best in everyone means you get assaulted and then blamed for being stupid enough to have assumed the best in a dude. Or you could go the opposite way and be considered a man hating bitch for not assuming the best in men. It is another shitty choice we all have to make for ourselves, and I won't tell women that the shitty bargain I picked is sooo much better than theirs, because it isn't. It is something we all have to work out, pretending that women being nicer to men would stop sexism clashes with everything ever recorded about stopping sexism. Assuming the best is not a good bet for women, and it doesn't actually accomplish anything. Assuming the best in others represents actual physical danger for some of the groups you listed (esp trans people), and I really don't blame any trans person for not instantly trusting that I am an ally.

This post was linked to before, but it is really really worth reading in this context.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/08/terrible-bargain-we-have-regretfully.html

Posted by: Aratina Cage | July 19, 2010 1:44 PM

Dr. Kirshenbaum has put up a response

Allow me to sigh at yet another instance of reading comprehension fail at the Intersocktion (formerly the Interdungeon). She also put up a link to a comment on Pharyngula that mentions her but is obviously directed at her sockophants, not her.

Posted by: Endor | July 19, 2010 1:53 PM

Why is it that d00ds like MrNaglfar, Fucar always think they have - independently and due only to their perfect manly brilliance - come up with a "gotcha!" deflection of feminist criticism that NO ONE has ever thought of before? And certainly, no feminist has ever heard before?

And when their arguments are easily defeated (because we've heard this bullshit song and dance a million times) they pretend it never happened?

I think this phenomenon needs a name. Perhaps the "Special Snowpenis" game (like the special snowflake game white people play vis a vis race issues).

Posted by: Aratina Cage | July 19, 2010 1:59 PM

IndiGirl, thanks, I'll head over to the never ending thread to read what everyone else said. And I agree that the rest of Kirshenbaum's post was actually informative as well as being a sad overview on how bad things still are for women today.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 19, 2010 2:06 PM

A Listed Lady @ 419;

Yes, I've had some very bad experiences because of my gender, but that doesn't mean I have to view all men as evil, lecherous bastards who are just trying to demean me.

As a heterosexual man, I feel reasonably confident in saying that you are right in so far as not all men are like that. I like to think that I am not like that, even though I must admit that I do notice women who fit my personal sexual aesthetic rather more quickly than those who do not. Unfortunately, there are still a disturbingly high proportion of the male population who behave in a fashion that is pretty much exactly like that.

Even those heterosexual men who are aware of feminist issues, and who make a conscious effort to be aware of male privilege and to acknowledge that their attraction to whatever form of feminine beauty aesthetic happens to appeal to them may cause them to engage in subconscious objectification, only get to this point after a process of consciousness-raising. There are few men born with 'good guy' genes. We have to learn which behaviours are harmful and unnacceptable, especially where society fails to clearly signpost a behaviour as discriminatory or otherwise pernicious.

If 'low-order' sexism is not exposed as harmful (though I can see the argument that this particular list could have quite serious professional and personal reprecussions for at least some of the women listed, and so calling it 'low-order', even in relative terms, may be in error), then the gateway is opened for more severe forms of abuse.

Skeptifem @ 425;

It is something we all have to work out, pretending that women being nicer to men would stop sexism clashes with everything ever recorded about stopping sexism. Assuming the best is not a good bet for women, and it doesn't actually accomplish anything.

QFT.

While the problem of male sexism certainly effects women, it is not a woman's problem, meaning that men have no active role in resolving it. The problem stems from the cultural construction of male attitudes to women, femininity and female sexuality. If sexism is to be finally removed as a canker on our society, then it is the attitudes and mentality of men that must change. The assumed privilege of a still-patriarchal culture must be challenged.

Posted by: jenkinscrowe | July 19, 2010 2:14 PM

@Endor, some feminist bloggers refer to this phenom as "Fresh! Manly! Wisdom!"

But "Special Snowpenis" is also good, and more than suffices. Nice one.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 19, 2010 2:27 PM

naddyfive @436

Because sexually aggressive or adventurous women are frightening to the patriarchy. A woman having lots of casual sex or engaging in responsible polyamory isn't kept beneath one man and of course is less likely to be that all-important virgin.

And why is the virgin important? The virgin is inexperienced, ideally ignorant of sex, i.e. she'll have no basis of comparison to how good the man is or how fulfilled she should be or ideally, whether she should be coming at all. As such, a man doesn't have to worry about foreplay, roleplay, setting the mood, erotic massages, oral sex, or any of that. He can just set her down, use her as a masturbatory aid and in his fantasy, be called a wild stallion owing to his "thrust as hard as he can" technique.

Whereas women who know their own sexuality will not be happy with this. They may expect sexual competence, may indeed take charge during sex at points to point out what she likes and dislikes and may expect a more even-handed exchange and will have the social power to leave and find another sexual partner if the man is unfulfilling.

This is threatening to the fantasy.

It's also threatening because if men are hornier, then it's "natural" that women complain about their lechery and it has nothing to do with the objectification of women, but rather women just being naturally cold fish who don't understand men's complete lack of internal censor.

And of course because horniness and "scoring" are seen as male ranking systems, a woman being better at that isn't knowing her place and also ruining the "game" where men pursue, women respond. Such a woman needs to be put in her place usually by sexualized violence.

It's because like with all things in the patriarchy, it's not about the sex, it's about the control, the social domination.

Which hurts women, but also hurts men as well, because it makes a man less of a man if he loves a woman and also means men get less fulfilling and less often sex, because dominated people, surprise, surprise, culturally want less sex, because it's not as fun.

Egalitarian couples have more and more fulfilling sex. It's one of the perks of not being a giant douchebag.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 19, 2010 2:31 PM

But "Special, Shriveled Snowpenis" is also good, and more than suffices. Nice one.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 19, 2010 2:34 PM

Wow, chgo_liz - spot on.

Posted by: tamakazura | July 19, 2010 2:41 PM

But then again, I also like to read graffiti in bathrooms. So I guess I'm not the ethical standard on w on what is and is not a public nuisance.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | July 19, 2010 2:51 PM

Gender Bias Taints Utah Legal Profession

...The survey found there are far more men than women working as attorneys in Utah — less than a quarter of the state’s lawyers are female — and men hold most partnerships at law firms.
     The survey found an underlying gender bias in Utah’s legal profession. Women reported they are paid less, get less desirable assignments, work more hours and aren’t offered the same advancement opportunities as men within their firms.
     While men are presumed to be competent, women said they have to prove their capabilities.
     Men’s failures were typically seen as situational, while women’s were attributed to personality or ability.
     Likewise, men are evaluated on their potential but women’s value depends on their achievements, the survey found. Just 11 percent of law firm partners in Utah were women; nationally, 19 percent of partners are female...

Posted by: nospinpr.com | July 19, 2010 3:01 PM

I'm thinking of the 'most eligible bachelor' series women's and geolocal magazines would occasionally run (and may still), and in the differences between them and the blog post in question. Because they were done by mainstream magazines, photos had to be acquired, brief interviews had to be done, and the 'bachelors' in question had to acquiesce to being included in the feature - very different ground rules from the ones used in the sexy scientist post and not necessarily an acceptable evolution of the ground rules either. Of course the irony of the 'most eligible bachelor' features was that some of the men featured were partnered even if they weren't technically married.

I also think of an amazing feature a short-lived Toronto magazine called Elm Street did on Canadian male politicians and how their looks and electability would be affected if they had cosmetic surgery - there were nose jobs and facelifts and chin implants and eye jobs and tooth veneering and hair transplants and stylings and colourings and wardrobe revamps. I found it quite shocking in a role reversal sense but it didn't make as many waves as I'd hoped it would.

I dunno - I guess if I want to live in a world where everyone is attractive in their own special way, guaranteed a certain quality and longevity of life, gainfully employed with enough to eat, flatteringly and appropriately costumed, where no one has to worry about shelter or housework and gender is no longer an issue, racism and sexism don't exist I need to get onto the crew of Star Trek Voyager, huh?

Instead we still live in a world where you can always find a Hooters and women who are willing to staff them. But that's a key point about the women 'chosen' for the sexy scientists posts: they've chosen not to trade on their sexual attractiveness in order to be gainfully employed. They put in the time at university rather than at the spa and the gym to develop their intellectual assets. They may well be sexy. They may well put in time at both the spa and the gym as well. But most of the women chosen for the post have chosen not to exploit their sexiness in their choice of career. Imposing a sexiness quotient on them is ultimately irrelevant. Is it all in good fun? It was interesting, when you clicked on some of the background links of the women's photos, to come across mainstream media coverage of the some of the same women that was far more exploitative and sexually suggestive than the post itself. Still, I can't help my gut reaction, which is that he Playmatization of scientists surely can't be a good thing.

Posted by: Endor | July 19, 2010 3:34 PM

"Shriveled Snowpenis" Nerd wins the thread. And that's what this is totally going to be called from now on.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 19, 2010 3:46 PM

@A Listed Lady

I was responding to;

Yeah, I don’t know what hospital scientist is, but she’s too hot to leave out.

Do you think was that my comment was inappropriate? Or was it just that you hadn't considered that some might see it in that way?

I reacted fairly harshly to what seems to be a horrible, horrible shallow judgement of a woman on the basis of a picture; the guy couldn't even be bothered to pretend that he cared what kind of scientist she is.

...it wasn't a “List of Scientists I Want to Do” it was just a “List of Attractive Scientists”.

A list entitled 15 Sexy Scientists, mastheaded by what is essentially a soft porn picture, with a picture of a bikini-clad hospital scientist who is described only as "hot", and you don't think this reads like a masterbatory shopping list?

I'm sorry if that idea is creepy to you, but I think it probably really is as creepy as that seems.

Wouldn't it be nice to live in the world where you could compliment a women on her physical appearance without it being interpreted as a creepy sexual thing?

Yes. I already live in that world. There are many friends that I could happily compliment without fear of making them uncomfortable. I wouldn't dream of offering unsolicited comments, publically on the internet, and about a stranger. It is a very odd thing to do.

If I walked up to you in the street and told you how "sexy" you looked, then you'd almost certainly be rightly concerned about my motives (certainly about my lack of respect for boundaries). I can't really see any difference here.

Posted by: byronjgrant | July 19, 2010 3:56 PM

@440
Totally and completely off topic, but Cool! Another games professional!
And an artist at that. :)
Env artist here, currently trying to go contract and solo, supported by my loving scientist wife.

But: On women in the games industry. It's incredibly male dominated. A lot of games that are made are hugely misogynistic.
And that mentality permeates the office culture of a lot of studios.
My office mate for a few years, and a good friend of mine, were having coffee in the lounge. We were laughing, and poking fun at each other. Like we always did.
Intern walks by, and cracks, 'Oh! Cheating on your wife!'
Now, my friend who shall remain nameless, is one of the most talented environment artists I know. Better than me. I have more experience, but she's more talented. So we came out about even, with a lot to teach each-other. Admittedly, she taught me way more than I taught her.
My first reaction was anger, at someone making an inappropriate comment. But when I thought about it, it was even worse than someone potentially rumour mongering: He was basically saying that she couldn't even hang out with her friends at work without someone making a sexual comment. Assuming she only had a senior position because she was a woman. Not because she was hugely talented. And that we got our last game deal largely due to her work.
Got me over the anger, and I explained it to the little shit. Calmly. I felt bad that it wasn't my first reaction.

Posted by: Palaverer | July 19, 2010 3:57 PM

Listed Lady, thank you for catching my generalization. What I said is not true of all women. I'm happy that you're in the minority of women who is comfortable with her body image. Unfortunately, there's a larger portion of the female population that isn't. And it has nothing to do with what they look like. Many women that could easily pass for porn stars or Hollywood actresses still loathe the way they look. That's not my judgment, it's theirs. When even conventionally gorgeous women have to be airbrushed into perfection, how are most of us supposed to feel like we are good enough? I'm confused about why you think I'm judging women on their appearance. I don't see where I did that.

Nor did I imply torture. I said work. Effort. Energy. Money. (Granted, some of this was at Luke's blog). Expenditures that men do not have to direct to their looks, so that we are already behind men on those counts.

Women, men, transpeople, why don't we all just stop assuming the worst about other people's thoughts?

Because the problem isn't the thoughts that motivated the list. The problem is that this list is indistinguishable from the crap that women put up with every freakin' day. I don't care what Luke's intentions were; the results were to alienate what ought to be a sizable portion of his allies.

I've said it umpteen times now: I have no problem with men finding women sexy. I find women sexy. But to call women out on it in a public space was inappropriate and off-putting and an exercise in narcissism and a really poor choice of his time and efforts. I know, the nerve of us to point that out, right? People can make whatever crappy decisions they want, but when you respect or like someone, you point it out when you think they could be making a better choice. Luke wanted details on why we thought it was a bad idea and we provided them. How does that put us in the wrong?

@interliminal: thank you! Luke seems to expect that he's going to get a scientific measurement of the validity of finding something sexist. As far as I know, there's no way in existence to account for human emotion and the immensity of social and cultural experiences to define an exact quantification of such a thing. The fact that he expects us to do so speaks of arrogance and unreasonableness.

Posted by: pteryxx | July 19, 2010 4:11 PM

interliminal @450:

What I see in this thread is a lot of the "that list promotes sexism" proponents being good arguers, despite any shortcomings in argument form. They've provided ample positive evidence for their position, specific examples of how the list might lead to and promotes sexist behaviors more generally, and why most arguments to the contrary (that the list is not sexist) are not acknowledging male privilege and implicit sexism. [...] Though it may be reasonable that MrNaglfar, ERV, and lukeprof have never encountered feminist thought before, it would certainly not be reasonable for them to avoid the rebuttals or to continue arguing as if they did not exist (or that they are "just wrong" for some unspecified reason).

O_o This is just a thunderbolt of incisive clarity. If it's interliminal's first post, the bar has just been raised.

Posted by: naddyfive | July 19, 2010 4:14 PM

Thanks for the responses. The points you raise, Cerberus, are ones I've also thought a lot about. It becomes much easier to understand whence the silly binaries when you realize that they are the backbone of patriarchy.

But I've always been curious about how individual men might experience their own motivations in this regard. I'm wondering how they'd subjectively describe their feelings about women and sex, as I feel I have decent handle on the structural underpinnings of sexism. So I've asked many men point blank why, if men are truly as horny as they claim, they generally don't encourage women to be open about their sexuality. I've very rarely been given a straight answer. A lot of them get sort of flustered, or defensive.

Sadly, among the more conscious men I've known, even those who avoid framing relationships in terms of the predator/prey dynamic, many will still insist on using words like "possession" when describing their relationships with women. Even some of the 'feminists'...

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 19, 2010 4:24 PM

tamakazura, there's a big difference between "This just doesn't bother me" and "You have no right or reason to be bothered by this" and that's where the argument is coming from.

Posted by: pteryxx | July 19, 2010 4:32 PM

Or between "This is offensive" and "this contributes to a bad situation".

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 19, 2010 4:40 PM

Or between "This is offensive" and "this contributes to a bad situation".

Hell and then let's not forget between "this contributes to a bad situation" and "the situation isn't that bad" too.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 19, 2010 4:46 PM

So I've asked many men point blank why, if men are truly as horny as they claim, they generally don't encourage women to be open about their sexuality.

Probably because female sexuality is more complex and problematic than the behaviour we've been culturally conditioned to expect.

We were conditioned to deal with the mother-whore, and both of those roles placed them secondary to the male partner. Assertive sexuality is perhaps uncomfortably close to a mirror of the male stereotype.

I would hope that these roles have become less defined as sexuality has become much less of a taboo for everyone. I certainly see many more sexually assertive women, and without them being forced to play the role of whore. I also see many more female friends who are sexually confident, in the various ways that manifests, and seem to have less obvious fear of encountering negative labels as a result.

Actually, I think that being able to openly talk about sexual roles is quite liberating for me as a man, because I can take some confidence that I'm responding to and meeting the needs of my partner.

Posted by: MrNaglfar | July 19, 2010 4:54 PM

PZ

So, MrNaglfar, you think women are not the victims of sexism, but men are.

Do you badly misrepresent people's views in your academic life too?

Find me a single time I voiced that above opinion.

Posted by: Deviant One | July 19, 2010 4:58 PM

Do you know what something like this says to me, as a woman, loud and clear? It's the same thing the Blizzard situation said, and which most of society says most of the time:

You Others are still a (distant) second-class. You are still only “allowed”/tolerated to participate, and that participation is a privilege, not a right, which can be rescinded at any time the privileged group feels like it - like when you need to get your sexay on to be recognized, or measure up to that sexay.

Also, ERV, it's NOT THE SAME because the goddamned CONSEQUENCES are not the same. At all. Women get raped, stalked, abused and more all based on how sexy they are, how much they "asked for it (i.e. how sexy they are)", how "unfuckable (i.e. how non-sexy) they are and other, much more things, AND then are told to BE COMPLIMENTED by all of this.

Men don't suffer in the same way from these physical and emotional dangers of objectification consequences - it is not physically DANGEROUS for them, it will not affect future job prospects, it does not impact the chance that that man will be raped in his lifetime. Also, the men you refer to (regarding the previous Daniel Radcliffe and Liam Neeson post) are IN THE PUBLIC EYE, where their CAREERS are based upon how they look and they have consented for pictures of them to be used - these women's pictures were taken WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT from private facebook and other pages, used to show how fuckable they are.

See how the consequence and the actions are not the same?

That said, if there was a similar post about sexay male scientists, pics and names without consent posted on a popular blog, and men were turning up in droves, saying they don't like it and it made them feel cheap and dirty, like a peace of meat only good for fucking - hey, her ass is hot AND she's got brains, talk about fuckability, amirite! that it made them feel marginalized and Othered, then I would absolutely say that that post needs to be taken down with apologies too.

Also, have you even READ the Shakesville article yet, or are you just sticking to "You are wrong and I am right, you're harming The Cause TM"?

Posted by: MrNaglfar | July 19, 2010 5:11 PM

PZ,

The one where you complain about the unequal treatment of men and women in this matter.

Yes. I correctly pointed out that, in the case of these lists of men and women, there is a sexism in the way people respond to it. When you call sexism on the female list but did not raise the same objections when the list in question referred to men, even after it's been made very clear that you're not being all that consistent, it seems to come off that you are treating men and women differently.

You'll notice, however, I never once said:
"[I] think women are not the victims of sexism, but men are.

I think both men and women are the 'victims' and 'perpetrators' of sexism.

I'll gladly accept your apology for misrepresenting my view if you see fit to give it.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 19, 2010 5:21 PM

@ Naddyfive

But I've always been curious about how individual men might experience their own motivations in this regard. I'm wondering how they'd subjectively describe their feelings about women and sex, as I feel I have decent handle on the structural underpinnings of sexism.

Now that I can answer.

But this:

So I've asked many men point blank why, if men are truly as horny as they claim, they generally don't encourage women to be open about their sexuality. I've very rarely been given a straight answer. A lot of them get sort of flustered, or defensive.

Puzzles me. Are you only interested in hearing from men who think the way you expect men to think?

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 19, 2010 5:24 PM

Bernard @472

Snrk. Good one.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 19, 2010 5:33 PM

@skeptifem
I'm sorry, I thought it was silly enough to be obvious that I was being sarcastic.

It was a response to the "What about the men????" crowd as, it seems to me, is typified by post-ers like MrNaglfar who seem to haunt these threads on gender issues. This thread must be something like the third of recent where PZ has been accused of sexism for pointing out male privilege.

I think that there are some male post-ers who would like these discussions not to take place, and hence why they feel so aggrivated and attacked when they do.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 19, 2010 5:51 PM

I'll gladly accept your apology for misrepresenting my view if you see fit to give it.

Posted by: pteryxx | July 19, 2010 6:19 PM

So I've asked many men point blank why, if men are truly as horny as they claim, they generally don't encourage women to be open about their sexuality.

Could this be because sexuality is framed as experience-based for men, but commodity-based for women? That description explains a lot... for women, just being willing to talk about sex seems to be a bad thing. While men are expected to act like they know everything about sex, even when they don't. I wonder how this overlaps with experienced status in general being honored in males?

(TVTropes warning: It will eat your life)

A Man Is Not A Virgin

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 19, 2010 6:24 PM

Ahh, maybe sexually instead of sexaully. It's this new term I am toying with for the causes of sex and it just crept in there.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 19, 2010 7:59 PM

It cracks me up every time PZ engages in this paternalistic handwringing when the mention of women's external beauty comes up. Men don't merit this overt protectiveness. It's perverse, like lauding women's deep mastery of balance and refusing to remove the training wheels.

Awww, who's the thinks-he's-smart widdle sexist? You are!

Of course, it would be fabulous to live in a world where all men paid attention to women when they said cut it the fuck out. However, amazingly enough, many don't. Strangely enough, though, those assholes pay slightly more attention when the same statement comes from a man. And interestingly, peer pressure from other men to cut it the fuck out does seem to, in fact, work.

Are you trying to say that it's paternalistic for men to comment on women's issues at all? So do you follow your own advice, and never comment on women's issues, lest you be seen as paternalistic?

Posted by: A Listed Lady | July 19, 2010 8:30 PM

Alright, I am still very uninterested in engaging people in an arguement in this thread, but apparently what I wrote wasn't as clear as I had wanted and confused a few commentors (some of who craftily figured out who I was an decided to email me to discuss outside of this – not cool, by the way, I choose to comment anonymously for a reason).

@skeptifem #425

Well, first off, no one was saying you should view all men that way. Not a single person. It makes me think you are not who you say you are when you talk like that, and some of the other things that you say are suspect as well. Just a hunch.

I almost feel like I shouldn't even bother addressing this, as apparently my style of commenting is seen as suspicious so it probably won't mean a thing, but I also wasn't saying that I thought others were claiming anything about “all men” in a negative way. I said that I thought it would better to put trust in “all people”, not a gender thing, because people were making assumptions about the motivations of specific men that I felt were not warranted (if the set doesn't have “creepy/dickish” as an innate property, you can't assume a random element of that set will have that property).

Next, sometimes assuming the best in everyone means you get assaulted and then blamed for being stupid enough to have assumed the best in a dude.

I am so sorry that you feel this way. I can't imagine what it must be like to live with that fear and I truly feel for you. I'm not naive, I know there are bad people in the world, but I just can't get through it living with that sense that I have to choose between believing the best about strangers (within reason... not in dark alleys at night or alone in bars or anything) and protecting myself.

It is something we all have to work out, pretending that women being nicer to men would stop sexism clashes with everything ever recorded about stopping sexism.

I don't agree that there is evidence to suggest that being understanding isn't a tool in fighting any 'ism, but I understand where you and others are coming from (and appreciate the link too).

@Carlie #426

Listed Lady - I can understand your personal response, but again you're doing the same thing that ERV did, and the same thing that Luke did, ad nauseum. "I don't have a problem with it, therefore anyone who does is overreacting."

Now I didn't mean to make it come across as me “not having a problem with it”. I don't think lists like this are nice or especially good ideas (without consent, I'm all for showing role models who can mix their careers with femininity, if the role models are willing for the job), I just don't think it's the worst thing that could have been done and I didn't like the assumptions people were making about its creation. I'm *not* okay with it, but that doesn't mean other people aren't allowed to be okay with it without me thinking that they are insulting me in some way (just like I understand that other people can be even less okay with it than I am).

@Cerberus #434

The pernicious myth that feminists are man-haters because they dare have the unreasonable expectation of men to actually be functional human beings, fully capable and indeed expected to not be assholes "totally just trapped by hormones", is a sad one and quite untrue.

Again, I really must not have expressed myself properly because I was definitely not trying to say that I thought all of the people who were offended by this list more than me were “man-haters”. By most definitions, I would certainly consider myself a feminist, so I would never mean to intentionally imply something like that, which I know to be untrue, about a group of people that I am part of.

Calling out sexism isn't hating on men. Calling out sexism is thinking well of men, so well that we think men should be ashamed when they dip into sad old sexism like this. Why? Because it should be beneath them.

Yes. I completely agree here. “Calling out”, I am all for, “name calling”, I am not.

@chgo_liz #438

And then every time, you shift to finding a ladylike way of excusing the behavior, undermining your own experiences and feelings. Do you realize that you're doing this?

Well we're definitely going to have to agree to disagree here because that's just offensive to me. I think if either of us should be in a place to judge if I am undermining myself - me, someone who pretty much constantly thinks about her motivations and actions, and you, a complete stranger who read a few paragraphs I, not so articulately wrote, on the internet - I'm going to have to default to me on this one. You think I'm making “ladylike” excuses for people's behaviour? That's your right, but that is not what I'm doing. I respect the overall averaging of what human nature gives our species, but that doesn't mean I make excuses for it – I just understand that things happen, and that I don't have to be okay with everything. Sure, I'd love it if people were different, but it doesn't matter where our species transitions to socially, there will *always* be outliers, regardless, even if the average human being is just wonderful and considerate. Me acknowledging the existence of those is very different than saying it's okay. Saying I've had bad experiences but that I am okay with them now doesn't mean I am making excuses for anyone's behaviour, it just means that I am a person who wouldn't be able to function in society the way that I enjoy doing if I held on to everything and transferred my feelings about one bad situation to another.

@chgo_liz #444

I also want to add something about the term "good genes" as it has been used above.

I should apologise here as I did use “good genes” but clearly not meaning the same way that others must. When I said that I had “good genes”, I didn't mean “good” as in thin with big boobs, I honestly just meant “good” as in healthy (you know, good, genetically, not socially - as in having a good metabolism, a healthy appetite, and uhh childbearing hips, I guess, and no back problems).

@Bernard Bumner #451

Do you think was that my comment was inappropriate? Or was it just that you hadn't considered that some might see it in that way?

Honestly, I did think it was unnecessarily crude (and because I hadn't chose to think about it previously like that), but I did know you were responding to what someone else had said and weren't making that statement from yourself.

A list entitled 15 Sexy Scientists, mastheaded by what is essentially a soft porn picture, with a picture of a bikini-clad hospital scientist who is described only as "hot", and you don't think this reads like a masterbatory shopping list?

I still do not think it was a “ masterbatory shopping list” because with the exception of the creepy banner (very creepy, but clearly just done to be eye-catching) and the two women on the list who had done some modelling/cheerleading PR, it was just a collection of some really regular women. Maybe being female I am confused here, but I didn't think casual, low quality, photos of strangers (mostly faces) were all that exciting for men to masturbate to. I am guessing from other people's reactions that I am missing something here though.

If I walked up to you in the street and told you how "sexy" you looked, then you'd almost certainly be rightly concerned about my motives (certainly about my lack of respect for boundaries). I can't really see any difference here.

It would be exceptionally creepy, but I do see a pretty big difference between “on the street” and online. Online, I am not in any *direct* physical danger (I know people disagree here though – the list is very different than stalking). They both show a lack of respect, but I think going up to someone's face and singling them out like that versus a list of 10+ women you are miles from are rather different things. I would feel *a lot* more uncomfortable to have a strange man stop me, alone, and tell me I am sexy than I did here.

@Palaverer #455

Because the problem isn't the thoughts that motivated the list. The problem is that this list is indistinguishable from the crap that women put up with every freakin' day. I don't care what Luke's intentions were; the results were to alienate what ought to be a sizable portion of his allies.

You are completely right. However, I think Luke's intentions are important when it comes to people calling him a sexist creep - sexist, probably, creepy, only if he was doing out of some unsavoury place.

@Xayide #482

Don't list us as separate from other women and men like this. It's incredibly othering and offensive.

I'm sorry you were offended, but if you identify with either female or male then you obviously weren't who I meant by including transpeople separately. Not all transpeople identify with either gender; I know people who would have been equally offended by only giving two gender options. You identify with male or female, then you are who I was speaking to in the “Women, men” part of that sentence.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 19, 2010 9:23 PM

Why do you think I'm discussing in bad faith?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 19, 2010 9:49 PM

However, I think Luke's intentions are important when it comes to people calling him a sexist creep

Again, people aren't calling Luke a sexist creep. They called what he did sexist and creepy. Big difference. And when it comes to actions, intent doesn't matter. If I drop a hammer on your foot, the action and effects of it hitting your foot are the same whether it was an accident or whether I did it on purpose.

Posted by: Xayide | July 19, 2010 10:18 PM

A Listed Lady @490:

I'm sorry you were offended

I would love to go for the rest of my life without hearing this non-apology phrase ever again.

If you meant non-binaries and genderqueer people, you should have said that, not "transpeople". If you actually care that I was offended, then suck it up and apologize for poor word choice, don't cissplain to me how I'm wrong to be offended.

Posted by: LoreleiHI | July 19, 2010 10:40 PM

Next, sometimes assuming the best in everyone means you get assaulted and then blamed for being stupid enough to have assumed the best in a dude.

I am so sorry that you feel this way. I can't imagine what it must be like to live with that fear and I truly feel for you. I'm not naive, I know there are bad people in the world, but I just can't get through it living with that sense that I have to choose between believing the best about strangers (within reason... not in dark alleys at night or alone in bars or anything) and protecting myself.

@A Listed Lady

Privilege is a wonderful thing. You’ve never personally been stalked, assaulted, or raped, from what you seem to say (forgive me if I’m wrong); you blame the victims by saying that as long as you stay home at night or out of alleys you won’t be hurt (what if that’s the only place you can afford to live, or if you have to work 2nd shift or graveyard?).
Do you realize that you’ve told a transwoman upthread that she’s at no risk of harm, that she should just be more trusting of men? Have you never heard of the Trans Day of Remembrance? Have you, a scientist, looked at the figures of what regularly happens to transgendered people? My spouse is a transwoman, and I live in fear of what may happen to her, let alone what HAS happened to me.
And I have been cyberstalked, as well. An ex hacked my email accounts, and threatened to reveal my spouse’s transgendered status to her employer. All from a Twitter account that had my name no where near it (just a picture and an old internet ID), let alone all the information Luke put up.
I get that it doesn’t bother YOU that he put your picture and identifying information up for the world to see. But the world simply isn’t a good place where you can just wish for the best and it will happen.

Posted by: Palaverer | July 19, 2010 10:51 PM

Xayide, I can't speak for Listed Lady, but in my case, the varieties of gender options and their appropriate descriptors are new to me. I don't think I've ever even seen the term non-binary. Thank you for educating me on that. I hope that you will continue to be patient in educating those of us for whom genders that differ from the conventional dichotomy are outside our normal sphere of interactions.

Posted by: Palaverer | July 19, 2010 11:05 PM

The first question was this: How can I, as a man, talk about how I find a woman physically attractive without objectifying her and being sexist?

This question has been answered. I will quote myself from Luke's blog:

It’s ok to compliment a friend whom you know will appreciate it. It’s okay to enjoy a woman’s sexiness in silence. But it’s sexist to compliment a woman you really don’t know on her looks and expect gratitude for it.

For more clarification see this article (which has already been posted to this thread).

The second question was this: What would it take to convince you such a list is not sexist?

That question has been answered numerous times. It would take an overhaul of society to where women are not viewed as meat to be judged no matter who they are and what they do. You insist you're listening to us, then claim that no one has answered your questions. You can't have it both ways.

Actually, I think Luke is sort of a creep. A non-creep would have responded to the comments, which went on and on and ON and were overwhelmingly critical of his blog post, by saying that he had not understood that his post would be offensive and that he would take it down.

I think for most of us, our initial reaction was that the post itself, rather than Luke, was creepy. But his lack of empathy and unwillingness to recant vastly lowered our opinion of him.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | July 19, 2010 11:11 PM

If someone drew the prophet Mohammed, blah blah blah blah blah. Are their parallels? You bet your ass.

What parallels? Drawing a picture of a person and labeling it as a picture of a misogynist versus having a stranger put you in his annual blog pin-up of sexy females are not parallel. Nobody's private life is breached by drawing a picture of a person that nobody living has ever seen and never will see.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 19, 2010 11:24 PM

First off, not a woman, so take what I say within that context.

Drawing pictures of a religious icon doesn't encourage people to act without thinking, it encourages them to think about their actions. Throwing pictures of women up on a public forum without their consent is acting without thought.

I approve of the concept of promoting scientists as sexy, because there is a cultural bias that regards people who pursue academia as being bookish and asexual. However, the difficulties that scientists encounter as a result of that cultural attitude are dwarfed by the difficulties that women face as a result of the common objectification of women. Given that fact, this list is very inappropriate and only really serves to make lukeprog seem uncaring. Defending the list baffles me.

@MrNaglfar

The first question was this: How can I, as a man, talk about how I find a woman physically attractive without objectifying her and being sexist?

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 19, 2010 11:26 PM

Ahh, preview. I suck. Sorry for the wall of bold.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 19, 2010 11:31 PM

But the world simply isn’t a good place where you can just wish for the best and it will happen.

What was the stat again? One out of three transgendered people will be murdered or commit suicide over the way they've been treated? Yeah, nice world you've got there.

Posted by: MrNaglfar | July 19, 2010 11:47 PM

@502

I liked that link. I thought it was pretty sensible.

It’s ok to compliment a friend whom you know will appreciate it. It’s okay to enjoy a woman’s sexiness in silence. But it’s sexist to compliment a woman you really don’t know on her looks and expect gratitude for it.

I'm trying to find the line between someone just being annoying and someone being sexist. For instance, if I'm out somewhere and I start talking with a girl whom I am not previously acquainted with, and I tell at some point in our conversation I find her attractive, was that being sexist? Do I need to ask her flat out if she'd appreciate it before I mention it? It would seem presumptuous to just assume I'd know whether a friend would appreciate my compliment.

Or what if I don't expect her gratitude for the compliment(why would I)?

Or Online dating sites (like Okcupid or plentyoffish): is it sexist of me to send a woman a message telling her I found her attractive? What about if I fond her "interesting"? Is it sexist for a woman to send me a message telling me either?

Or - one more - two stories from my past week. First: I was out at a bar. An older, heavier woman with whom I was not acquainted with came over to me and my friends. She commented on how she liked my long-hair and eyeliner. I was doing my best to ignore her because I didn't find her attractive. Was she being sexist?

Second: I was getting lunch at MoE's with one of my lady friends. The girl who rang us out said she didn't mean to be strange, but that she liked my hair (again, with the hair). In about 5 minutes, after we had been sitting down and eating, the cashier came up again and asked if she could touch it. I obliged and that was the last of our interaction. Was that sexist?

It would take an overhaul of society to where women are not viewed as meat to be judged no matter who they are and what they do. You insist you're listening to us, then claim that no one has answered your questions.

With regards to whether I'm listening, I challenge you to find a single answer to these questions which isn't yours.

As for the answer, in order for me to convince you that this list isn't sexist I need to overhaul the whole of society? Sounds like you're setting the bar beyond any reasonable standard. That aside, I don't see how that would even demonstrate that such a list is sexist, in any case. Could you elaborate?

@503 and 504

The parallels are that in both cases, someone is suggesting that someone's offense to something is grounds enough for taking it down without being able to question whether the offense is worth the censoring.

Apparently, given his behavior, Luke doesn't respect women and doesn't want women (or PZ Myers, who's sort of an 800 pound gorilla) to respect him.

That is one hell of a leap to make, especially since the author repeatedly denied that. This is what I mean by a bad faith argument. You're flat out telling me what someone else, who isn't you, thinks, even if it goes against that someone else's explicitedly stated views. That takes some kind of balls. And it's why I'm less inclined to think people here are arguing in good faith. I hope you can see that.

Posted by: Gyatso | July 19, 2010 11:52 PM

Mr Nagflar @ 499

If someone drew the prophet Mohammed, and it caused a considerable of discomfort to a specific audience, would you be advocating the person who drew it should take it down and apologize? Would you say it's not worth discussing whether drawing Mohammad was actually problematic, and that the artist should take a closer look at his behavior?

Don't be an ass. You don't get to choose which gender you're born with. Religion is a belief, a choice.

Have you got a point to make?

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 19, 2010 11:58 PM

Muslims are an intentional subset of the general populace (yes, I know, most don't truly have a right to leave and that is a different abomination) who are trying to force their narrow belief system on the world at large.

Women are an accidental (meant in the sense that you can't really control your sex, although there are certainly people who switch) subset of the general populace and the feminist cries of sexism are trying to broaden the narrow belief system that is the current status quo.

I think that is enough difference right there to render the comparison moot.

Posted by: Xayide | July 20, 2010 12:01 AM

Rev. BigDumbChimp @513

Well that's better then.

Um no, actually not.

Why, because it's not funny? Sorry, they can't all be hilarious.

Posted by: MrNaglfar | July 20, 2010 12:08 AM

@517

I enjoy reading the gender philosophies of young chronic masturbators.

What does enjoying masturbating or porn (or sex, for that matter) have to do with one's views on gender philosophies?

Posted by: Palaverer | July 20, 2010 12:10 AM

Then we're not really discussing anything; we're just sharing opinions

You're goddamn right we are! How many times do I have to say this? Human emotions mixed with social and cultural experiences are not scientifically measurable. All we have to go on with sexism is the feeling of oppression by the group in question. If sexist behavior happens and no one calls it out, is it still sexism? Who cares? This isn't happening in a void, we are saying we don't like this treatment and Luke has the option to take that into account or not.

In regards to your questions, Naglfar, read every post made by Cerberus among others. And even if my comment was the only one, you still can't claim that no one answered your question. You are a troll and I'm done wasting time with you.

Posted by: MrNaglfar | July 20, 2010 12:16 AM

@519

When I said that nothing would convince me that this list isn't sexist I was saying that no amount of rhetoric changes the list. It doesn't become a different list through apologetics in much the same way the bible is still the bible no matter what you say about it.

I could be misreading you, so forgive me if get your meaning wrong.

The list is still a list of 15 scientists Luke finds to be "sexy". We are agreed on that. My disagreement lies in that I don't find such a list to be "sexist". It may make some people uncomfortable. Some people may not like being on said list. Some people may like it. Some people would consent to be on such a list. Some people wouldn't.

However, that's not sexism to me. If someone thinks Luke's a dick for posting such a list, that's fine by me. I disagree with their assessment, but that's life. I take issue with calling it sexist, because there doesn't seem to be anything sexist about it. Especially when people (I presume the same ones) said nothing about the list of sexy men atheists.

I saw people complaining that the list of female sexy atheists contained pornstars, to which I'd respond: so what? What does their choice of profession have to do with them being atheists or physically attractive? Nothing as far as I can tell.

Posted by: MrNaglfar | July 20, 2010 12:30 AM

@523

There's a word for this behavior, which escapes me now... a guy trying to find out how much he can "get away with", how many Good Guy tokens he has to turn in to buy back the "right" he supposedly has to judge a woman's appearance and thereby her worth.

I'm not going to be told I can't care about how someone looks, guy or girl. In fact, I'm not going to be told how I should be expected to judge someone and what I should find important. That is, in fact, my right. But that's a separate issue.

Well, you are objectifying a person if all you talk about is their physical attributes. The entire concept is that a person is more than a list of external markers.

Now, don't get me wrong. I agree to only talk about someone like their value is tied to their physical attractiveness, or to any other single trait, IS to objectify them. I'm curious what the cutoff is, for whoever feels like answering it. How many things I need to mention before I'm no longer objectifying them. I suspect that no one has a specific number. That's why I said the boundaries looked to be more like "I know it when I see it". Of course, that's not particularly helpful for the purposes of discussion.

...Was she being sexist?

I figured someone would be stupid enough to try an put that emphasis there that you did. I was hoping they wouldn't, but I'm a realist and knew it was coming.

Do tell me, why should I have been expected to talk to her? She approached me, without my consent, commented on my attractiveness, without my consent, even after I was doing my best to ignore her. I gave her no impression I wanted to talk, yet I'm expected to make polite conversation?

What if the shoe was on the other foot?

There's a woman at a bar and some guy 20+ years her senior comes over to her and tells her how attractive she is. She didn't invite him over and isn't interested in flirting. Would you expect her to sit down and make conversation with the guy for an extended period of time to get to know him before she decided whether the flirting was welcome or not?

Because I certainly wouldn't.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/NxE_lE0Lh_9JksaAqRedu6R7Vg--#bf6f6 | July 20, 2010 12:37 AM

Carlie #488:

Of course, it would be fabulous to live in a world where all men paid attention to women when they said cut it the fuck out. However, amazingly enough, many don't. Strangely enough, though, those assholes pay slightly more attention when the same statement comes from a man. And interestingly, peer pressure from other men to cut it the fuck out does seem to, in fact, work.

QFT. I'll admit that I'm one of those assholes. I got my schoolin' over at Feral Scholar. I'm glad men like Stan Goff, PZ and others who have been linked to or posted on this thread themselves, do speak up.

It sucks that that's the what it takes sometimes, and it would indeed be fabulous if men, myself included, would learn this shit right quick hearing it only from women. And I appreciate the seemingly infinite patience women (and men, too) demonstrate so often in trying to get men to, in the simplest terms I can think of, recognize and acknowledge their privilege.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 20, 2010 12:53 AM

What? Can the hole dig any deeper?

Posted by: MrNaglfar | July 20, 2010 1:06 AM

@527

Would you be defending his actions had he posted a list of the 15 most repulsive scientists?

I wouldn't say that such a list was sexist.

Would you do so if they were all women he considered repulsive?

When it comes to the list in question, Luke made it clear that these were people he was personally, physically, attracted to. Provided he was straight, I wouldn't expect him to include men on the list if he wasn't attracted to them. He was candid about that.

If he was gay, and considered women sexually repulsive, I wouldn't hold it against him in the same way I don't hold it against him that he finds women more sexually attractive than men.

Lukeprog has placed their worth as scientists on a level with their worth as physical specimens

Even after he denied doing that many times? Did he ever say, anywhere, ever, that their accomplishments meant nothing in light their attractiveness? No.

This was a list about some scientists he felt were physically attractive. When I'm considering physical attractiveness, I don't need to also factor in how fast someone can type, or whether they love to paint, or what their political philosophy is.

What you're claiming he did is something you're imagining he did. It's something he explicitedly denied. I hope you can see that.

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | July 20, 2010 1:39 AM

O_O

O_o

o_O

*headdesk*

*isded*

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | July 20, 2010 1:50 AM

Even after he denied doing that many times? Did he ever say, anywhere, ever, that their accomplishments meant nothing in light [of] their attractiveness? No.

He. Didn't. Have. To. The cultural context we're all swimming in did it for him! And the fact that he "specifically denies" doing something that his actions in fact did speaks more to his *blindness* than anything else.

I could explicitly deny that the delicious beef jerky I'm NOMing caused any living creature to suffer. I'd be lying. He explicitly denies that his list feeds directly into the tropes and trappings of an unequal playing field. That denial is... well, it's denial.

Posted by: MrNaglfar | July 20, 2010 3:10 AM

@535

I am saying that he did belittle these people's worth. I am not just projecting my opinions in this matter as there are plenty of other people chiming in who also interpreted his actions this way.

You are just projecting your opinions. The people who agree with you are as well. As I am. I don't think he did belittle their worth and I don't think anyone thinks any less of those women on the list because that list exists. Luke doesn't seem to. I certainly don't. And no one who disagrees with us seems to think less of them either.

I'd wager that anyone who would think less of these women because of such a list probably doesn't think highly of women in the first place.

On the same note, it doesn't really matter if Lukeprog explicitly states that he was only talking about what he likes, what is attractive to him and that he also respects these women for their intellectual pursuits.

So it doesn't matter what qualifiers he's added? It seems then we're back at the idea that Luke even expressing that he found a woman attractive is wrong and has hurt them and women everywhere. I don't buy that premise.

"I was only trying to make my exit, I didn't mean to cut that person off and it's not like I caused an accident"; it doesn't make my driving any better.

Here's how I would look at the metaphor. If he cuts someone off accidentally, that's an unintentional dick move. If he cut someone off and other people begin telling him he ran over their cat, that's a different story.

I don't mind people thinking he's a dick for making the list, even if I don't agree with them. What I do mind is people saying it's "sexist". I don't see the sexism. I see where the I-got-cutoff feeling can come from. I get it. I don't see the you-ran-over-my-cat.

Posted by: GermanMan | July 20, 2010 3:56 AM

@ A Listed Lady, 490

I still do not think it was a “ masterbatory shopping list” because with the exception of the creepy banner (very creepy, but clearly just done to be eye-catching)

Have another look at the list, please. The wank-off picture at the top is named and tagged as 'sexy scientist'. Count the number of scientists in the list, including P.Z.: 14. So, not only was that wank-off picture labelled as all the other pictures of real scientists as 'sexy scientist', it was also counted as 'sexy scientist #1'. The picture is as much part of the list as is yours. He basically put Laura Spinney's picture just below a wank-off picture and labelled them the same. How is that not declaring 'that's what you are' to all the women down the list?
Intentional or not-so-intentional, doesn't matter. We're not a jury with an impending verdict of 10 years of hard labor for that poor guy. We're just discussing what he did.

Now, there are always excuses to be found for any instance of sexist behaviour. And Luke does the standard thing of not asking "Did I do something sexist" but instead "Am I sexist" as if both were the same question or as if the second one even had a meaningful answer. You try to excuse him by speculating about his intentions; he tries to hide behind pseudo-philosophic reasoning like a non-stop humanities douche-nerd. That's not helping. Luke only exposes himself as a clueless idiot and all support he gets in doing so will make him continue, damaging himself more than any woman on the list.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | July 20, 2010 7:25 AM

I'm not anal retentive enough to read the whole thread from my last posting. Was the general concensus that you shouldn't steal someone's pics, especially if you're going to turn them into cheesequake (Strawberry version now available at DQ)?

Humans really aren't evolved enough to see past looks and body bits yet. Maybe Homo Astronomicus will be able to reach some height of political correctness where the arrangement of meat on one's skeleton doesn't colour one's judgement of an individual. Anyone who says that effect doesn't happen to them AT ALL is a complete Fibber McGee. How you process that involuntary mental reaction, however, is the true gauge of your personal evolutionary peak.

Would Luke have been pooed on so vehemently if he had compiled the same photoset and just said 'kudos for your science achievements?' and didn't mention a hotness scale? (Not sure that people wouldn't think he had some ulterior motive with the bikini shots, though)

@Ol'Greg & badgersdaughter: Tell society's Hollywood glamour affliction to go fuck itself. Please continue to spread your delicious mind-marmelade among the Pharyngulites and you will always be beautiful people.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 20, 2010 7:54 AM

You, Mr. Naglfar, are a troll.

Posted by: John Morales | July 20, 2010 8:07 AM

[meta]

Having caught up on the thread, I take this opportunity to (metaphorically) doff my hat to the fierce women of Pharyngula™ in general, and to Palaverer and PZ in particular.

Posted by: byronjgrant | July 20, 2010 8:57 AM

A female game developer produces a game (which I didn't find all that good, but I digress) and suddenly the patriarchy treats her like a slut trying to sell her game based on her appearance.

I've encountered this, people talking about 'Women in games' meetings. (To which men are invited as well.) Some very unfriendly language. It's a loud group, but they're getting smaller. Slowly.

On the language on first person shooters...
I really hope that changes. People say all sorts of things when they think they're anonymous. Things get past the filter because they think they can get away with it. Acting like a spoiled 8 year old, apparently, is cool.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | July 20, 2010 9:27 AM

@ #547: Hawking probably got by on the audacity of his brilliance. There were things he was saying that was compellingly interesting and innovative to anyone with the least shred of intellectual curiosity. Most of the science popularizers seem to me to have some sort of charisma, probably from a confidence in presentation and knowledge of what they're presenting that translates well to the TV. Sagan, Nye and Kaku aren't GQ cover models, but they get and keep your attention (well, mine anyway). I won't bother putting Neil deGrasse Tyson in that same group since I've heard women essentially paraphrase Catherine O'Hara's 'Lola Heatherton' character on SCTV and say they "WANT TO BEAR ALLLLLL HIIIIIIIIS CHILDREN, HA HA HAAAAAAAA"

For women presenters I would put Carolyn Porco in that group, but she doesn't seem to have wanted a TV show or the television production world stupidly didn't ask her.

As big a backwards step it may seem on the 'that shit is wrong' scale (because of the whole objectification issue), if you want to take the message to the masses (at least on TV) I think a fair amount of geek charisma isn't such a bad thing. I could fill an NHL arena with the number of people I have heard or read that became interested in science because of Cosmos. We need more of that and less O'Reilly and Beck. WAAAAAAAAY less. None, actually. Get more people sewing patches on the elbows of their corduroy jackets and we can crush the TeaBaggers and the whole 'stupid in America' movement in one TV season!

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 20, 2010 9:38 AM

Most of the science popularizers seem to me to have some sort of charisma.

Absolutely, and charisma is so much more than skin and tissue.

Posted by: llewelly | July 20, 2010 10:15 AM

Human emotions mixed with social and cultural experiences are not scientifically measurable.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 20, 2010 10:37 AM

Luke, shut the fuck up, all right? The only 'problem' here is that you're a narcissistic kid. You should shut up, listen to other people, and think about this, for years, maybe without documenting your every precious snowflake thought along the way in a public wankfest blogpost.

Years.

Of listening and thinking. Mostly listening. And mostly to people with 2 X chromosomes.

that's my advice

Posted by: Eric Saveau | July 20, 2010 10:49 AM

@shala

Though I mostly play Left 4 Dead with my son and daughter-in-law. Ahh, surviving the zombie apocalypse... good times...

Posted by: Palaverer | July 20, 2010 10:50 AM

llewelly, either you have misinterpreted what I said, or you can explain how those tools aid this discussion.

Posted by: lukeprog | July 20, 2010 10:54 AM

Oops, double post. Any way we can delete 559 and keep 561?

Posted by: Endor | July 20, 2010 10:55 AM

"The problem with objectification is not that the act of objectification is wrong, but that the concept of objectification fails to explain why something like Playboy is wrong."

LOL. So, over 500 posts and you learned exactly nothing.

Next up Luke is going to regale us with his totally accurate and inarguable conclusions about how we're totes a post-racist society and why all them darkies should just shuddup already.

Posted by: Shala | July 20, 2010 10:57 AM

I do!!!!!! And I am CREDIT TO TEAM!

I'd love to add you, then we can both be CREDIT TO TEAM! Don't run, it's just HAM!

Posted by: Shala | July 20, 2010 10:59 AM

Lukeprog:

Shut the fuck up. You are a shit stain on the panties of life, to borrow an insult from other pharynguloids.

Posted by: Shala | July 20, 2010 11:05 AM

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/pharyngula

It's done! Just made it! Our own Pharyngula steam group! :D

Now we can all be credit to team!

Posted by: lukeprog | July 20, 2010 11:08 AM

Dania,

Oops, good point. Sorry, Sven!

But then, if you want me to listen to other people and think about it, Sven, then isn't that precisely what I'm doing? I spent 10+ hours reading 500+ comments across several blogs, responding to them directly, listening to the stories, having my perspective changed and enlightened, and the whole while doing an awful lot of thinking.

So I'm doing all that. The 'shut the fuck up' part is what I won't be doing.