Of pears and atmospheres
Jen at Blag Hag is attempting to clarify a few points about sexism and also hoping the drama will die now. I haven’t read all the relevant documents, but the gist of it is that there was a panel at a regional atheist meeting at which a woman objected to a bit of debatably sexist vocabulary and then all hell broke loose.
There’s a video of the relevant part of the panel, and I broke down and watched it this morning.
Here’s the thing. I can see that it’s not a slam-dunk that the word “female” is necessarily sexist…but by god that panel was sexist. It was sexist from the beginning (the beginning of that video, at least). It doubtless wasn’t intentionally sexist, but oh lordy was it sexist. It was reekingly obnoxious. I would have been out of there in about 30 seconds. Not to go cry in the toidy, just to get the hell out.
The panel was all men except for one woman, and that one woman pretty unmistakably found it futile to try to pull her weight. The trouble is that at least two of the men on the panel were loud and domineering and happy to do all the talking. Hello? That’s the kind of thing that has been silencing women for forever! The combination of total outnumbering and loud bossy “this is how it is” pontificating creates a thick fog of male butch macho guyishness that a minority of women just can’t cut through.
The atmosphere in that room was horribly locker-roomish. And it didn’t need to be. If there had been more women on the panel and if the men on the panel had been better chosen, things would have been different. As it was…it was just frankly repellent.
It annoys me that people still don’t get this. I remember being surprised forty years ago that people didn’t get this – even avowedly and energetically feminist men didn’t get this. Even avowedly and energetically feminist men would still cheerfully hijack conversations in such a way that any women present just gave up. Even avowedly and energetically feminist men would still listen to each other but interrupt any woman who started to talk. Even avowedly and energetically feminist men would still not feel the smallest discomfort that the women had fallen totally silent and that male voices alone filled the room.
That atheist panel in fact seems like a throwback to those days, when second-wave feminism was new and the men hadn’t quite re-learned old habits yet. That guy with the stentorian voice who did all the talking should get a clue. People who organize panels should leave guys like that off them.
Ophelia, did you see how the women on the panel responded to all of this? It’s probably the most disappointing part of this drama. Basically told all women who don’t agree with her to shut up: http://jesusfetusfajitafishsticks.blogspot.com/2011/02/get-back-in-kitchen-and-rethink-your.html
Jen, no, I hadn’t. Ew.
I mean, there can be such a thing as too much fussing about small things. But this was a panel of all men apart from one woman, laying down the law about “females” and sexism and other such subjects. Men mansplaining feminism and sexism just isn’t all that conducive to women feeling like part of the gang!
Her “new friend Heath” talks way too much and too loudly. I do not admire him.
This isn’t necessarily always a sexist occurrence, either. Loudmouthed men often speak over others who are more soft spoken than themselves, be it over men or women. Good moderation keeps that from happening to either sex, so I don’t think we have to distill this down to sexism to come up with some effective solutions but can speak more generally of rudeness and poor or non-existent moderation.
I’m not saying it wasn’t sexist, BTW, but I’m not sure what to do about sexism per se. You are saying to a certain extent that in addition to being out numbered in many venues women are different and generally meeker than men–or if you aren’t saying that, then why would they need to be treated differently, and I am being serious. I’d like to see better representation, but I find the issues complicated. Girls, for instance, may be able to learn better in same gender classrooms where the boys don’t get to dominate the teachers attention, which sounds like a good thing, and yet I also find the idea of gender segregation sort of Talibanesque, which is a bad thing.. I don’t know how to match practical goals with gender equality, etc.
Well, I was more irritated by the use of the term ‘girls’ than anything else.
In a similar situation where a panel was made up of all women; I could easily envision them dismissing her concern that the word ‘female’ was sexist in very much the same manner.
I will go to Blag Hag and search for clarification.
Generally, there’s a fear factor. A loud voice scares people, because consciously or unconsciously, it’s associated with big muscles and getting hit. Thus, many of us, especially women, tend to remain silent
when a loud, insistent voice dominates a situation.
Well, besides being sexist and locker-roomish, it was pretty banal and boring. Why would anyone stay and listen to such stuff?! And why would anyone plan it?
Thank you for writing this. Reading the comments and follow up blog postings on Friendly Atheist I was beginning to think I was the only one who had a similar assessment.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa, Wayne de Villiers. Wayne de Villiers said: Of pears and atmospheres – Jen at Blag Hag is attempting to clarify a few points about sexism and also hoping the dr… http://ow.ly/1bmO56 […]
There is an imbalance, this is a problem, and we need to address is seriously.
Okay, I am without a doubt missing something. I just don’t know what it is.
The cameras weren’t in position to show the woman who had her hand up the entire time without being acknowledged, so I can’t address that. I can address the claim that numerous men were being recognized instead, since I didn’t see anyone recognized. I saw and heard no one from the crowd speaking other than brief, throwaway comments.
The one hotbutton issue discussed – whether women being approached in secularist conferences was sexist – caused the panel to poll the crowd. Both by their count and visibly in the video, the response favored the idea that this was a minor issue, if one at all. I will be generous and say that I could not see everyone participating, but neither could anyone else watching this video. Perhaps the large number of dissenters were out of camera range, but seriously, no one else noticed this?
As for the woman who complained, I couldn’t hear all of her comments, and only know the gist of what she was saying from the guest post at Blag Hag. “Females” was indeed used – by one panelist, or actually I think it was the moderator – more times than perhaps necessary. I have a hard time accepting that this reflects much of anything other than the speaker’s own style/approach/idiosyncrasy – I’m actually a little leery of certain things that I say, from my own past experience, to the point that others have remarked about why I’m being so circumspect (and laughed when they found out – both women and men.) So yes, I can identify that speaking to feminists can indeed be a minefield of subjective phrasing, and will be perfectly happy if a list of proper terms is agreed upon socially. But then again, I also see “African-American” as a nonsense term used more to create conflict than to address the supposed negativity of “black,” and I don’t buy that horseshit.
The “weaker sex” joke (and yes, it was a joke, that’s very clear) was ill-timed and not a good choice at all in the face of the complainant and her apparent state of mind. Is that sexist, or a faux pas? I saw enough women on the tape who didn’t find it actionable. From what little I could see, the woman’s reaction wasn’t clear, but it supported the claim that she stormed off. And if this was indeed obvious, then yes, an apology was certainly in order.
But as for the claims that this was a shitstorm of testosterone flinging, brutish lockerroom badinage where women were disallowed to contribute or overruled when they tried? No. Absolutely not. Not buying that for a second. I kept waiting for the unconscionable parts to begin. I’m still waiting, and the video’s over. The lone woman panelist had her own microphone, and got to speak every time she opened her mouth. If she failed to address concerns that others had, the blame needs to be placed on her and her alone, and not try to consider her a victim of other speakers. Isn’t the idea that she couldn’t hold her own against the voices of others rather demeaning, especially since I couldn’t even hear two of them? Seriously, are we going to promote woman’s equality and capabilities by claiming they need to have special considerations made in a conversation? I’ve been in enough meetings where I politely waited for an opening and then, not getting one and being cut off in mid-intake several times, blurted out my point just like everyone else was doing. If it were women carrying most of that discussion, do I get to claim sexism?
I think we have to be exceptionally careful that “sexism” is not defined by a select few women who self-appointedly speak for all females, regardless of whether the majority want them to or even care about the supposed issues. And I think that the “rules” of critical-thinking apply to all subjects, including feminism. Hyperbole, straw people (ahem,) and slippery slope arguments do not belong.
I don’t know if I would’ve lasted that long. Infuriating. I’m only halfway through the video and it’s going to be tough to finish that. And I’m so annoyed with Dawkins right now I could spit.
Start here:
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/2011/02/delusions-of-gender-cordelia-fine.html
I’m definitely with Just Al on this one, particularly his last paragraph.
And SC, I don’t understand why you’re annoyed with Dawkins. His description of the post that started this whole shitstorm is quite accurate.
(Sorry for not blockquoting- I’m posting from my phone & don’t know how to do that on the mobile browser)
(Your comment is just where I’m taking off from – this is general and not directed at you.)
The problem is that many of us have been addressing it for years, and we’re just ignored (not by everyone, but by many). We’ve had dozens of threads about this at Pharyngula, Greta Christina and others have written great pieces about it, we’ve pushed for changes, we’ve expressed what some of the major issues are. Dawkins said 2 1/2 years ago that he was setting up a speakers’ bureau / contact list, which AFAIK he still has not done. (On that same thread, by the way, he was flogging some nonsense from Helena Cronin as well as his interpretation of that sex study, and the problems with both were explained to him in detail at the time.) Then what do I see practically every day when I visit atheist/skeptic blogs? No response to anything substantive anyone has argued, no follow-through on promises, people who don’t understand anything pontificating about it, and the constant resorting to the most inane biological essentialism to “explain” problems that aren’t being addressed. On top of being ignorant and useless and diverting attention and energy from real solutions, this essentialist speculation works to create an environment in which women feel insulted, angry, and defensive.
I haven’t read that post and I don’t care about his description of it. I’m talking about his description of that sex-offer study and the ridiculous claims that it (his interpretation) merely reflects what everyone knows “intuitively” from “folk psychology” (as though he’d be so impressed with “folk physics” or “folk geology”). (His use of “hysterical” was a nice touch, too.) And see my previous post. Why should I care about someone’s opinion when they can’t be bothered to read or address criticisms or counterarguments? I’m not inclined to believe they do care about the problem.
(I’m still somewhat annoyed that when he linked to my blog post he called me “he,” and despite the fact that I emailed him to ask him to fix it and several people in the very first comments pointed out that I’m a woman he still hasn’t, but that’s minor.)
But I didn’t say that. I didn’t say it was a shitstorm of testosterone flinging, brutish lockerroom badinage where women were disallowed to contribute or overruled when they tried. I didn’t say there were unconscionable parts, or unconscionable anything. I said what I did say.
It was a very male panel. A couple of the males on the panel were very loud and conversation-hogging. It’s true that that disadvantages the less domineering men too, and I could have pointed that out. I think I meant to, and forgot. But there isn’t an ongoing issue about getting more men as such involved in atheism; there is such an issue about women. The combination of all but one of the panel being male and a couple of those males being loud and domineering created a very loud, male atmosphere in the room. Given the ongoing issue, that’s unfortunate.
Scote
No I’m not, I’m saying that when they are both hugely outnumbered and outlouded, then they are handicapped, and that since their (our) scarcity among vocal atheists is considered a bad thing, that’s a stupid arrangement.
Oh gee there aren’t enough atheist women. Well here’s an idea: don’t make it extra special difficult and unpleasant and pointless for women.
Does anyone have the wording of the question that was voted on for the panel discussion?
Oh hey, good point; thanks. I’ll have to cross out the part where I self-appointedly said I speak for all “females.” Just as soon as I find it.
Oh hey, really? I don’t know if I can possibly accept that. I’ve never said a critical word about any aspect of feminism in my life, so I don’t think I can start now. And as for straw people, well, I would no more kick them out than I would deflate my inflatable doll.
Also, what Eric said. It was boring and banal. That’s another reason I would have left 30 seconds in. That loud guy talked way out of proportion to how interesting he was. Ugh. It was like an SDS meeting.
I don’t think anyone on the panel had any real knowledge or preparation to say anything useful.
And the claim that it’s “just the way it is in any organization” is incorrect. (In general I’ve not felt disrespected or harassed in sports bars, for the record.) In fact, many church groups put many atheist groups to shame in this regard.
I’m reminded of this:
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=7475737
A talking greeting card, with an astronomy theme, that says “black holes” at one point. People at the local NAACP chapter heard “black whores”. The audio doesn’t sound remotely like that. These were people so sensitive to racism that they invented it out of thin air.
There is no sexism in that video. Not a lick. Juvenile humor? Sure, a bit. Lack of excitement? Definitely – I wouldn’t subject myself to that video if it weren’t for the absurd controversy. But not remotely sexist. If you think it is, your instruments are out of tune – picking up noise and calling it signal.
Thanny:
Two women in this debate, OB and SC, seem to feel that loud male voices make it hard for women to speak out. I, who may be called a whimp, also feel that loud voices, which are almost always male, make it hard for us whimps to speak out. Now, you may have little interest in hearing the opinions of women and of whimps, but if you do want to hear the voices of those whose message is generally drowned out by the roar of the alpha-males, you must give us a space. Sorry. Genuinely sorry. But we whimps learn early to apologize when we raise our voice.
Phew! I’m relieved we’ve gotten that settled. Here I thought there might be disagreement about something.
My wife talks over me all the time. Sometimes I have to confront her. Does that make her sexist? No, it makes her rude. I’ve had many men talk over me, as well. Sometimes to the point I’ve had to aggressively enforce my boundaries against their behaviors. Does that Male-and-male over-talking make them some sort of weird pseudo-gay-sexist? No, it just makes them rude.
So, barring any true evidence of sexism, versus mere rudeness, nobody has a case. No matter how much they get their undies in a bunch.
So having watched the video… Sorry. Some over-talking. Some people ‘trying to be funny’ and failing. But nothing I haven’t heard, in one shape or another, out of the mouths of men or women in regards to the opposite sex.
The repeated use of “females” is a problem, I think. People don’t generally use it that frequently in everyday conversation, and when they do with frequency it implies thinking of and prepares others to conceive of women in sexualized and/or essentialized terms.
Moses has spoken.
This whole shitstorm makes me quite sad. The barrage of (what I perceive to be) overreactions and excessive anger and a parade of commenters (primarily on the original post) letting their emotional reactions get in the way of a rational and skeptical analysis of the situation was extremely alienating and off-putting for some people, myself included. And the vast majority of these people are feminists’ natural allies (for lack of a better phrase). I realize that I’m using only personal experience and anecdotal evidence here, and I both apologize for that and acknowledge its weakness in comparison to factual evidence.
I know that “offensive” is a very subjective term, and I think it’s very important to create atmospheres that are welcoming, open, and that encourage a diverse range of voices (the “big things”). However, we must acknowledge that there are various degrees of “offensive”, and that those who take great offense at and feel extremely angered by what the vast majority of people would consider to be the “small things” are diverting attention away from the bigger problems. And that’s unproductive and disheartening, in addition to being very off-putting to many of us. And yes, I realize that I’m using argumentum ad populum, but I think it’s valid here (although that’s just my opinion, of course).
I do feel sympathy for those who were offended in this situation; that sympathy, however, does not mean that I think their claims have any merit. Everyone has the right to be offended and to express their anger. But that offense and anger must be evaluated skeptically and considered rationally, both by the offended person and by their audience (in this case, blog readers). And in this case, the offended parties failed to act skeptically, instead choosing to let their emotions override the facts in some instances. This was also true of many of the commenters, who accused the panel and/or Sean Faircloth of sexism before carefully analyzing the facts. And that happens. We all do it on occasion. But when we realize we’ve done it, we need to amend our initial reactions to indicate that, after having thought things through, perhaps our original anger/condemnation/rage wasn’t justified after all.
But I don’t see that happening in this situation or in other similar situations. And that’s depressing. If, after having considered all the evidence, there’s still a reason to feel anger, then that’s understandable. Often, though, in these “small things” situations, there just isn’t. And when there isn’t, we need to admit that.
Anger isn’t a virtue. It’s frequently justifiable and understandable in light of the facts, but, just as often, it’s not. And when anger over the “small things” becomes some sort of feminist badge of honor and/or a “requirement” for calling oneself a feminist, then many natural feminist allies are going to be very reluctant to help fix the “big things”. And that’s sad, because we need these people, these allies.
I think this is a very important thing to keep in mind.
So, Miranda, you offer no substantive response to anyone’s substantive points.
Of course it isn’t. And you seem to be under the mistaken impression that feminists care what you think. I for one do not. Be a clueless twit.
[citation needed]
I knew I would regret this.
You’re not listening (those of you who aren’t). You’re ignoring the larger picture. It is an issue 1) that women are scarce (compared to men) among atheists, and 2) that some behaviors by some men are likely to repel women or silence them or both. It’s pathetic that a panel of nearly all men seemed like a good panel to discuss the scarcity of women and what might be keeping them away; it’s pathetic that a panel of that kind should include such drearily stupidly unselfconscious loudmouthed male conversation-hogging as was on show on that video. It’s pathetic that a bunch of men who have appointed themselves to discuss the “where are the women” question should do such a ludicrously bad job of it.
That is sexist. How could that not be sexist? How could it not be sexist for a panel of men to grab the subject? How could it not be sexist for them not to have more women on the panel?
I’m not saying that loud voices make it hard for women to talk, not loud voices all by themselves. I’m also not saying women have to be babied – I hate that idea and I’ve argued against it many times. I am however saying that a combination of things like loud voices, conversation-dominance, and almost no women in official roles may well result in a panel that is repellent to many women. I’ve worked in atmospheres exactly like that, and it was repellent. Life’s tough. But conferences and gatherings aren’t like the world of work – they can afford to take thought about things like noisy bossy men on ego trips, and avoid them.
That’s incredibly rude and unnecessary. Seriously, if you’re going to talk to me that way, you’re not worth responding to. There’s no need to be mean.
#30 was my response to SC in #28, just to be clear
Mine wasn’t addressed to Miranda, by the way – that was a cross-post.
Ha! Some intersecting there.
Your pouty emotionality is so pathetically female, Miranda.
Take it easy, SC.
My observations:
1. The man who kept saying “girls” over and over again made we want to slap him. It was always “guys” and then “girls.” Sorry, but they don’t carry equivalent connotations. “Girls”, especially in such measure, is the language of young men who fancy themselves Lotharios. It’s vulgar.
2. It was hard to hear much of what the woman in the audience said, but it seemed her complaint wasn’t voiced in any over-the-top way. She also seemed like she was flinching at the anticipated response. Prescient of her, since the panelist’s “weaker sex” joke was incredibly fucking rude. That was a paradigmatic Dick Move – perfectly insulting and dismissive. And dense. And outrageous given the context.
3. I realize that many women – and some men – find it hard to break in when more domineering personality types keep talking, and talking, and talking. And those domineering types need to self-moderate more. This is one of my character flaws – I’m “that guy,” it’s just in my nature. I try, but I often fail.
However, meek and mild people need to try, too. They need to at least attempt to say, “Excuse me, I’ve been waiting, and it is my turn to speak,” and insist on speaking. There will always be loud mouths, and with some of them, the only way to get a word in edge-wise is to stand your ground. The woman on the panel struck me as almost fearful and apologetic about speaking at all. No, I’m not blaming the victim. No, I’m not absolving the others of responsibility. But being the deer in the headlights will keep one silent, and it reinforces the aggressors. You can’t always count on a moderator to stop this dynamic, and attempting to be more assertive would be a real help to some people.
4. Listening to this, I can understand why someone would start to feel a little squicked by the excessive use of “female.” No, it wasn’t the only word used, and no, it wasn’t even used 90 percent of the time. But it was noticeable, particularly in contrast with the much smaller number of times “male” was used. It’s not unreasonable on its face to feel a bit like a sexual specimen in those circumstances.
I also don’t like that kind of usage because it reminds me of cop-speak: “Subject is a white male, hair brown in color. . .male subject leaving the parking lot.” (See if you can spot the other aesthetic crime in that sentence). It’s clinical, it’s cold – it strikes me sort of the same way the use of the word “homosexual” does. Makes me feel like a person who’s been reduced to a walking sex drive and stripped of all other human characteristics.
I’m trying to make a point here.
Wait, what?
Miranda, I agree with you that anger is not its own justification. Saying “I’m offended” is not a conversation-stopper.
But the panel was nearly all-male, and it was patronizing and obnoxious – or not “it” so much, but its loudest and most incessant voice. That burst of laughter when he said “Would you prefer ‘the weaker sex?’ – that was schoolyard laughter. He had a kind of comedian schtick going, and the audience went along with it, including some of the women there…But why were those women letting that guy lay down the law about women in the first place? I don’t get it. I think the whole set-up is insulting.
Sigh. And if you read the discussion threads on Jen’s site, it’s all too obvious that, like every thread on this topic, they’ve attracted the Sexism Explainers. You’ve no doubt witnessed this type: They’re completely incurious about the causes of the marked gender disparity among atheists, but they’re adamantly certain that sexism can’t possibly have anything to do with it, and they’ll explain this to you at length. People have differing opinions on this topic, of course, but the distinctive characteristic of Sexism Explainers is how incredibly invested they are in being right about this*, and how they instinctively treat any mention of sexism as a deeply hurtful personal attack against them. I don’t know how much overlap there is between the Sexism Explainers and actual sexists, but it’s hard to escape the conclusion that they play much the same role with regard to real sexism as religious moderates do with fundamentalist faith – smothering the discussion and preventing anything constructive from getting done.
* And will therefore argue it to the death, long after reasonable people have given up talking to them, which is the unfortunate reason why sexism threads often end up being dominated by these types.
SC, I know – I got it. But it looks harsh all the same.
It doesn’t seem from her blog post that she was fearful at all. She’s foolishly apologetic and had little to contribute. As OB said, the problem was with the panel in the first place.
Josh, thank you – that describes exactly what I thought in many places, but didn’t have the energy to enumerate. Yes, all that.
And I agree about the need to speak up when there are loudies. Absolutely. But when there is also a panel full’o guys…things get more complicated.
There’s also the whole not wanting to set off competitive shouting problem. That’s why I didn’t shout over Madeleine Bunting when she interrupted me on Night Waves…morally speaking, I should have, but I just really didn’t want to get into unseemly back and forth screeching. So she got to win.
Obviously, I was referring to her vocal performance in person, not to her blog post. I also wasn’t restricting my comments only to her.
Oh, FFS.
Quite. Why was that panel all male? Has anyone said? “Oh…uh…we forgot.” ??
Yeah, the thing about the panel being all guys – I get that it complicates things, definitely.
And I don’t think you lost on Night Waves. I remember that exchange with Bunting, and my memory is that she made herself look like a raving fool while you sounded reasonable (and subtly shocked). I hope I’m thinking of the right piece – I may even have written you about it.
SC, come on! After “clueless twit” – you don’t have a lot of slack left!
Oh dalling, you’re thinking of the right piece. : D
Such a lovely way to look at it!
(That was of course the choice I made – to let her be rude. It meant I didn’t get to say what I’d been going to say, but it also meant she sounded bloody rude. As she was.)
Huh. Seemed like you were talking about her. In any case, she didn’t seem fearful to me. She was just the only woman, and the panel included an inordinate number of blowhards.
The thing is that the problem is often circumstantial – you can have people who are vocal and unintimidated, but the circumstances aren’t conducive to their being heard, and when they do speak out they can be physically bullied (*cough*Henry Gee*cough*).
And yes to what Ebon Muse said, too. The Sexism Explainers. Oh godddddddddddddddd.
And intimidation isn’t the only reason for not struggling. It wouldn’t be my reason. In my case it’s more like a kind of laziness…or maybe more like sulking. Yes that’s it. “If you don’t want to let me talk I’m just not going to try, so there, nyah.”
That is, if I’d been on that panel with that blowhard. But I wouldn’t have been, because I would have looked at it beforehand and said “What are you, kidding me? Forget it!”
Considering the appalling state of persecutions with women within religions, atheists should not only take the imbalance of women within the atheist movement seriously, but should also consider having higher standards in the matter. What that panel failed to do was take the matter seriously, and only further trivialised the problem. This was inappropriate and I urge anyone who doesn’t ‘get it’ to go watch the video clip over and over until you ‘do get it’.
I stand by that. I responded to her remark to me with an explanatory post, and then she came back with that “emotion” garbage, ignoring the substance and painting her interlocutors (myself included) as irrational. But it’s irrelevant – I’m not a child and didn’t realize I was getting “slack.”
I agree with Ebonmuse.
Time for another indefinite break.
There is a phenomenon – I don’t know if there is a name for it (yes, there are likely 4 letter expletives for it) – where people, generally older white males but it could be other groups, are completely blind to the inherent power advantage they possess (let’s call it privilege) and truly cannot see their blithe disempowering of out groups.
We see it with women, people of color, gays, atheists, and poor people. A good example is in the movie My Dinner with Andre where Andre laments that he calls his doorman Jimmy, that only because he can afford to buy into the building, he assumes the position of adult to the doorman’s “child.”
So, yes, sexism is pervasive, and ingrained in our language. But it can be subtle and because people do not want to think of themselves as sexist, they ignore language and behavioral choices that would even the power relationship. Assuming they would even want to level the field, which for many is unlikely.
SC, no, you’re misremembering – “clueless twit” was in your first reply to Miranda’s first comment. Miranda said absolutely nothing to justify that; her comment was reasoned and reasonable. I should have told you off at once, instead of delaying, but I didn’t want you to flounce off again – but here you are flouncing off again, so I shouldn’t have bothered delaying!
(Sightly off-topic. Sorry…)
Josh:
I’ve said elsewhere that I’m for banning all copspeak for people who are not themselves cops. In fact, now that I think about it, I’m not sure it’s necessary for cops to talk that way either. Copspeak includes calling women “females” as well as calling an argument an “altercation”; calling a car a “vehicle”; and my least-favorite—lord have mercy—calling people “individuals.” For some odd reason, I hate that one. It cracks me up when someone says “a group of individuals.”
Yes. There is something rich though about a panel that was apparently about sexism-in-atheism that featured such a blatant clueless display of the very thing.
Andy – but how about perp? Perp is indispensable, wouldn’t you say?
Wrong. But do tell me off about how #27 is actually #12.
Oh right. Sorry. My mistake.
But “clueless twit” was your first reply in this later sequence. There were a few hours between the two sets.
Um. yeah…OK…That’s a point, there.
*eyeroll*
Back atcha, pal.
@59 — “Perp” is not the same, I think, because when people appropriate it in everyday life, chances are they’re purposely being cute or ironic. People who walk around calling women “females,” or calling a group of people “a group of individuals,” are more than likely being dead serious.
Heh. I just listened to a few minutes of that panel again. “So if a female comes into the room…” Wha?? Why not a woman?
God they’re bores. Never mind the sexism, they’re bores. I would have been out of there in ten seconds.
The other dynamic worth noting is that, yes, out groups will become sensitive, sometimes overly so, to language, as per the example of black holes being heard as black whores (more likely they heard black ho’s), but this is understandable when you see the lengths groups in power go in using dog whistle codes to express racist, sexist, and other exclusionary ideas.
If you are called derogatory names long enough, you hear them even when they are not said.
Yeah, there’s just no good argument for the above usage of the word “female.” It’s an overly general, overly clinical, and (to my mind) unenlightened usage. It’s funny how, taken in isolation, the phrase “if a female comes into the room” doesn’t tell me whether or not what’s coming into the room is even a human being. It might be a pug.
PZ has posted on this as well. As I said over there (and at the risk of sounding like a broken record about the “p” word), I have to strongly agree with his observation of the close similarity between (1) the male privilege that this entire episode is soaked in and (2) the religious privilege that basically every controversy Gnu Atheism is involved in… is soaked in. The privilege angle is noted-in-all-but-name in Ophelia’s post here, too (and named, though IMO too tentatively, in Locutus’ comment above), but not as much this particular (1) vs. (2) comparison. I’m hard-pressed to think of a controversial issue that’s been hashed out in the atheosphere that doesn’t boil down to unjust privilege of one kind or another (or more than one).
PZ has posted on this as well (link omitted because I think it got this caught in the spam filter).
As I said over there (and at the risk of sounding like a broken record about the “p” word), I have to strongly agree with his observation of the close similarity between (1) the male privilege that this entire episode is soaked in and (2) the religious privilege that basically every controversy Gnu Atheism is involved in… is soaked in. The privilege angle is noted-in-all-but-name in Ophelia’s post here, too (and named, though IMO too tentatively, in Locutus’ comment above), but not as much this particular (1) vs. (2) comparison.
I’m hard-pressed to think of a controversial issue that’s been hashed out in the atheosphere that doesn’t boil down to unjust privilege of one kind or another (or more than one).
That video was like a balder, maler version of The View.
A lot of people (particularly the very eloquent Josh Slocum) have already voiced much of my thoughts on this. I also think Salty Current, while harsh, was reasonably and appropriately harsh given Miranda’s rhetoric. It didn’t seem to me like she made substantive points, but rather just used a lot of verbiage to say “You’re all being too PC and oversensitive and I don’t have to give in to your offended feelings.” YMMV.
About the actual panel, and the issue of standing up to the loudmouths: I appreciate Josh Slocum’s point but think it’s a little more complicated. Yelling back can be counterproductive and create a spiral into a shouting match, as Ophelia noted. (Plus it’s physically unpleasant and makes you hoarse).
But also, yelling can create the impression that you’re “strident” and “hysterical” and overemotional and unreasonable. A man who talks loudly comes across either as forceful or, if he’s really extreme, as a bully. A woman who talks loudly can come across as an overemotional shrew who is incapable of looking at things rationally. Loudness from a woman throws her rationality into question in a way that loudness from a man doesn’t do the same for him.
Women who advocate for feminist issues already run the risk of looking strident and hysterical even without being loud. Just look at this thread: despite Ophelia’s reasonable and even-toned original post, Miranda and MosesZD and Thanny and Just Al have responded by accusing her and feminists in general of being too quick to take offense (i.e. too emotional) and failing to think critically about feminist issues and daring to speak for all females (strident!) and a whole host of other failings that her post just does not display. And this is a blog post, not a spoken conversation; Ophelia definitely wasn’t “loud” in any sense. If a woman spoke the content of this post in a firm, loud voice, talking over the men who tried to interrupt her, I can imagine the reaction. It would not be supportive or pleasant.
Being seen as strident and hysterical and irrational doesn’t just harm the individual woman who is speaking loudly. It also creates a bad impression of feminists and feminism in general. Now, personally I think the fear of looking strident is overplayed, and women should be more willing to risk it. But a lot of women aren’t, and not just out of personal shyness. It’s also because they don’t want to discredit their actual argument. And that’s a reasonable concern, and one that simply advising women to be loud won’t address.
I also have to say that it’s simply insulting to see this group of dull blowhards being nominated (by themselves or by others, it doesn’t really matter) to talk on the Woman Question. Who are they? Neither wit nor sense nor intellect recommend them to speak on the subject.
Right. That’s an endemic problem for out-groups, right? It’s the gay man “shoving his sexuality down our throats” by walking hand-in-hand with his boyfriend down a public sidewalk; the “uppity Negro” who doesn’t “know his place”; the lazy socialist class warrior… and the fundamentalist/strident/militant/New Atheist. And feminazi, harpy—absolutely.
It’s the Catch-22 that in-group privilege creates: either keep quiet and let the powerful majority steamroll you, or speak up and be immediately branded a hysterical freak who’s beyond the pale of acceptable discourse. It’s how you silence a disempowered minority. (An Uncle Tom or two helps, too.)
All good points, but I wasn’t referring to yelling, physical hoarseness, or anything like that. I was arguing for greater conversational assertiveness, and I think I said something reasonable. Assertive is not equal to physically loud (the part about Ophelia enduring Madeline Bunting’s actual yelling came later – I was not posting about that). It’s really, really important to me that these two things not get muddied up (or at least that you recognize you’re talking about something that may be true, but that I did not suggest).
I hope that you aren’t suggesting false balance. There are a number of prominent women atheists including yourself. How representative are they in terms of publications prominence? What should the balance be in panel discussions? Should we mandate a 50% rule? If so, on what equitable basis?
Hmm…a panel on how to get more women involved in the atheism movement? I’m going to go with a 100% mandate. If you want to know the feelings of women — I know this sounds crazy, but bear with me — how about asking women?
I guess you could ask a bunch of men what women think, but if you actually wanted an accurate answer, it would be quicker to go to the source.
How about we also mandate some diversity? Different races, different ages, different backgrounds? I’m guessing a 50-year-old white woman might have a different take on the world than a 22-year-old black college student. Or than a 30-year-old Chinese stay-at-home mother. Or any other wonderful, varied permutation of women.
Women are not a monolithic block. Age, race, income, current living situation, etc., all add up to a wide-variety of perspectives. One thing they aren’t however: men.
Maybe this will get me scolded (scoted?), but I don’t think a 50% rule would be such a bad thing. Maybe not for every single panel, but if conference organizers got together and said “We’re going to see if we can’t create more gender balance than previous conferences. Let’s strive to have at least half of the conference participants (presenters and panelists) be women. We may not have perfect balance every time, but let’s make a concerted effort to not have an overwhelming imbalance.” Would that be so obscene a strategy?
I tend to tip-toe around this sort of issue, at least most of the time. But, bracketing off other issues, I can certainly get behind the idea that this was a poor choice of panelists. You’d think such a topic would have had at least equal numbers of women on the panel to offer a diversity of women’s experiences. I don’t think it should have been all women, but three out of five, say, would have been sensible. As a bloke who has some sensitivity to feminist issues, I’d have aimed for that sort of ratio if I’d been putting the panel together. I’m surprised it wasn’t done like that.
I’ve often been trapped on panels with poor moderation, waiting to get my “turn” while someone rabbits on loudly and unselfconsciously … hogging the allotted panel time. I’ve seen people of both sexes do this; I don’t think it’s overwhelmingly a male thing, though in my experience it’s more a male thing. The only cure is firm moderation by a moderator who is committed to the idea that he or she is there to do what is required to make all, repeat all, the panelists look good.
On a couple of occasions, I’ve sat fuming, then ended up getting angry and demanding my turn – which is not really a good strategy, but walking the line between too polite/forebearing and too aggressive can be difficult in such situations, or at least I find it so. It happens to blokes who have a few manners and a sense of the larger situation, not just to women.
I’m not sure, though, that these particular guys were all that bad. I’ve seen much worse. Still, at the very least, there were too many of them.
That panel discussion was a horrible thing to watch. Had I been the only woman on the panel, I would have been hesitant to speak too much too, because I would have felt very uncomfortable speaking as a representative of all women. The men of course didn’t seem to be the least bit uncomfortable speaking for women, and that is I think the purest example of privilege one can find.
It really hurt my ears to hear the word female used over and over again. And the word male for that matter. The idea was to talk about a gender imbalance in the freethought movement, not the mating habits of atheists in conferences.
I thought the men were controlling, as is too often the case (not sure it’s any better in Australia with Sheilas.)
At least half of the people on that panel should’ve been women. Did you see when one of the “men” called the women “girls”.
Was this meeting in the South? That shouldn’t matter, but maybe maybe the South is really behind the times.
I ask respectfully, why not an all-female panel? If I had a dollar for every all-male panel I have sat through and every all all-male management team I have worked under in the past 30 years, I could buy a first-class seat on the flight to the next conference I attend. I am curious why the panel requires men to display the diversity of women’s experiences?
I did not attend this conference, therefore, I can’t tell if the purpose of the session was to solely address women in atheism, or to address other topics, as well. If the panel was to discuss a wide-variety of issues, not just attracting women to atheism conferences, I wouldn’t be so sweeping in declaring “why not a 100% female panel?” Although, honestly, why the hell not a 100% female panel? It would be a nice change of pace, that is for damn sure.
I suppose because it would be nice to see men and women working together to address and minimise sexism. But not until a (distant, I fear) future in which significant number of all-female panels had already been assembled to address the issue and mobilise larger numbers of women to participate in a big way. Then, I’d be happy to advocate a 50/50 panel, myself, and even begin to be able to imagine a time (again, distant, I fear) when a decent ratio would sort itself out naturally without having to be imposed (cue inspiring music?).
Having looked at the video it appears to me that there was a lack of professional moderation. They were addressing a topic that had been suggested by the attendees but failed to recognize that the panel, having only one woman out of five, was hopelessly inadequate for that particular topic. It didn’t seem locker-roomish in atmosphere (I guess I’ve been used to a lower class of locker room) but it did come across as fairly informal – more like a pub get-together for atheists. I’ve been to a few of these and it is usual that a few people dominate the conversation and some less vocal individuals (male and female) are left feeling somewhat isolated. A meeting like this should be much better moderated to be fair to all participants rather than those with the loudest voices.
As for the complaint about the term “female” – well its the first time I’ve heard it described as a sexist label but the response of the panel was clearly wrong. The complainant herself demonstrated the appropriate response that the panel should have done themselves – try to find out whether the word IS sexist to women by asking them and if they are told it IS inappropriate they should use this as a learning experience.
And whats with the flinging insults at Miranda Celeste Hale on this thread? There is a time and a place for gratuitous undeserved insults in the new atheist blogosphere. The place is the comment section of pharyngula and the time is whenever someone disagrees with something PZ has said.
That’s an excellent point that I’d never consciously recognised before. Thanks.
I couldn’t hear the comments being made in the video clearly so I don’t feel able to make my own comments on that aspect of the meeting. How ever, from what I can make out, the whole point of this was to address the subject of getting more women involved in atheism and atheist groups so surely, if someone at the meeting brings up a point about sexism at atheist groups that point should be addressed, not ignored or ridiculed.
I’m a female, & I didn’t think the panel was sexist. Boring, yeah, & rather awkward & unpolished in terms of public speaking skills, but not sexist. In fact I think its mostly women who have been sexist towards men, in their reaction to what happened. As a female/woman/human with a vagina, I totally don’t get why this is such a huge deal. Yeah, perhaps the panel could have possibly handled things more sensitively, but even so, i don’t think this particular incident is deserving of such a huge uproar. I actually feel sorry for all the men that are being called “mansplainers” and made to feel guilty for their “male privilege”. I think in this instance a lot of women ARE being oversensitive. The incident could have been used as a way to highlight the many small ways a woman might be put off going to atheist groups, an example to heighten awareness of the unintentional gaffes men may commit that women are sensitive to etc – an opening for constructive dialogue. Instead what happened was some women went straight on the warpath, attacking &/or absolutely dismissing anyone who happened to disagree. It has not been a positive learning curve for atheists, male or female, but instead I feel like it’s created a very divisive, highly emotional & reactive environment. /my 2 cents
Seems to me that someone should have had the nerve to stand up and say “This discussion is an insult to my intelligence, and to yours, we really need to just stop now.”
Of course, if that happened more often, there’d be no internet…
The point is, imagine this was about attracting more african-americans into atheist conventions, and all the white members of the board kept referring to them as “blacks”, even they were being superficially concerned and understanding of african-americans needs and concerns. One such “black” gets up and say “why don’t you use some other term, like african-american or non-caucasian?”, and the answer would be, in the same jocuous tone, “would you rather we called you negro?! Ormaybe coon?!”. It wouldn’t really happen would it, and if it did, well, probably the black panthers would come back from the past and “kick the one who made that comment ass” and everyone would support them. The fact this attitude towards a woman is not getting universal condemnation says a lot about the general male chauvinism present in our society!
Yes, but if the panel members were chosen before the questions were know (was it?), that makes the inadequacy a little more understandable.
Nah, more like when someone disagrees with an established consensus in the comments. You’re more likely to get away with disagreeing with PZ. Often these coincide, of course.
I find it odd. In an analogous community back in the 70’s, British Fandom, women played a huge role. Without women many conventions would not have been held because no-one would have organised them. Mind you back in the 70’s everything was still pretty sexist and often these organising women received far less respect and recognition than their few male counterparts.
One thing that struck me forcibly was this uncomfortable use of the word “female”. Why did do many of the male (panel) members use it? Has using the word “woman” suddenly become sexist? Trying to put myself back into the mindset of myself in my youth, I am reminded of how liberal men used to react when confronted with evidence of sexism; they (myself included) retreated into a quasi-scientific voice. in an attempt not to seem prejudiced or judgmental.
Food for thought, definite food for thought.
There are some excellent comments being made here, and also a few people who still continue not to ‘get it’. PZ Myers has written an excellent article that also explains the problem very well http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/feminist_hypersensitivity_or_m.php
I think this entire episode has been a consciousness raising one for many (including me) and we need to keep being reminded that various people are being under-represented.
Seems to me if the organizers of that panel want to know why more women aren’t attracted to public atheism, they just need to review their video. Frankly, the women I know would probably find a better use for the time. Eric had it right – “boring and banal”.
This should put the whole “female” thing into perspecitive:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vN1GgRa0CQE/TVhq8MryREI/AAAAAAAAAEE/n1sWqZePpHI/s640/FEMALE.jpg
I like the suggestions PZ made about this at Pharyngula, especially the bit about men on the panel giving up their seats to any women present and shutting up to listen for most of the discussion.
I like to think I would have done that, but wisdom is easy in hindsight.
@Lars Karlsson
Yes, female is an adjective and can be used appropriately.
I agree with PZ’s suggestion on that point although you would still need good moderation to be fair to all points of view. A badly moderated panel of all women is not going to be immune from the possibility of someone hogging the microphone and not giving others the chance to speak.
Josh: fair point, I get the distinction. Though my point about perceived stridency/irrationality does apply (to a lesser extent) to conversational assertiveness as well as to actual yelling.
MelissaF: your comment is, I am sorry to say, a recitation of thoughtless cliches. It’s not “sexist” against men to explain that they have privileges due to sexism. Nor is it sexist to point out the phenomenon of mansplaining. Nor was any woman in that video “on the warpath,” unless you have a total double standard for male and female displays of aggression (whereby if a woman timidly speaks up, she gets the same blame for aggression as a man would if he shouted and threw things). Nor is it “oversensitive” to object to a bunch of men sitting around discussing the Woman Problem with minimal female participation. On the contrary, that’s the basic principle of democracy at work. Men shouldn’t speak for women; women should speak for themselves.
I would like to see all-female panel discussions of this. I would also like to see 50/50 male/female panel discussions of this. What I have no interest in seeing is a bunch of men talking and very few women getting a word in edgewise. Why should I care about the thoughts on women of a group of men who don’t have any interest in actively soliciting female opinions about women?
I do agree that a lot of the problem here probably stems from simple bad moderation. Bad moderation is a problem in itself and can exacerbate other problems, like sexism.
I can’t really think of a good reason to have a panel about why there aren’t as many women in the atheist community only having one woman. There should have at least been a 50/50 split.
Ah…well, that is different. Yes, for such a panel I wouldn’t mind a 100% panel of women–though I’d be loath to say “mandate.”
Hmmm. I’m a loud-talker, and I know I have hijacked meetings and such before as a result. It’s hard to help it — I just talk that way, especially if I am excited or passionate about something, and I tend to be highly opinionated. It never really occurred to me that this could disproportionately exclude women from the conversation, however. In my defense, I interrupt men all the time too :) But you’ve given me some food for thought.
Problem is, I don’t know what the hell I’d do about it. My wife is constantly trying to get me to stop loud-talking, with no success. I am not at all hopeful about improving on that front :/
I must confess I didn’t make it through more than the first minute, for exactly this reason. I was bored to tears and couldn’t bear to wait it out until the crucial moment.
I will say this: If someone tells me that a term I am using is offensive to them, or that the way I am using it is offensive, no matter how full of shit I may think they are at my first impression, and no matter how difficult it is too do this, I try very hard to pause and be humble and think about it for a minute. It’s just far too easy, especially when you are in the historically privileged group, to fail to see very real — if unintentional — connotations. I used to be much more likely to knee-jerk, if my usage was clearly not intended to be offensive, but now I try to be more circumspect. Whatever the merits of the questioner’s complaint, the panel should have considered it carefully before responding.
I also think the make-up of the panel was dubious, if only because of the topic. I do not think it is realistic at present to think that every panel on atheism will have a good mix of men and women — the demographics do not support it. It’s probably a good idea to try to make sure women are represented most of the time, even disproportionately so, but balance is probably not usually achievable. But for a panel about the problem of gender bias in atheism? Srsly? Yeah, that should not be a male-dominated panel. That’s just crazy.
I will have to do some soul-searching on this loud-talking thing. As I said in a previous comment, I’m a loud talker, and I know it’s a problem, but it is difficult to change… but the thought that my habit might be disproportionately excluding women is highly disturbing to me, and not something I’ve considered before. As Blackford says, it absolutely affects men as well, but it seems at least reasonable that it might disproportionately affect women. Alas, Blackford is probably also correct that the only real solution is a firm moderator. If I’m excited about something, I will talk loudly and at length, unless I am reminded to stop. I am not optimistic about reforming myself in that regard.
I watched the video, though couldn’t make out what the woman from the floor was saying (or much of what anyone was saying come to that). I certainly take the point that there were too many of the panel who were males, particularly regarding the subject for debate, and that they tended to be boorish and loud (I’m a man, but I hate loudmouths like that with a passion too), but if the woman from the floor was complaining about the use of the word ‘female’ – I think she was being a bit too ready to take offence. The guys on the panel didn’t exaxctly respond well, but that is a different point.
James, don’t beat yourself up! I didn’t mean to say it always works to exclude women. The effect was pretty damn conspicuous with this panel, and I’ve seen it happen a fair bit, but it doesn’t always work that way. Enthusiasm and excitement in discussion are good. Actually that’s not what was going on here at all – the talky men were very low energy, which is part of why they were so boring. It was more like a quiet assumption of their right to do all the talking.
I don’t know anything about the panel; maybe that guy on the end was supposed to “lead” the discussion or something. But then…if that’s the case he should have been getting other people to talk, not doing it all himself. He also would have been sitting in the middle, I should think. No, I can’t see how to rescue him.
Could be. That’s why I said “a woman objected to a bit of debatably sexist vocabulary” and “I can see that it’s not a slam-dunk that the word “female” is necessarily sexist.”
On the other hand, taking the discussion as a whole, the usage did become increasingly awkward and stupid. It did at least point up the awkward stupidity of a couple of male blowhards telling everyone what’s what about women. It did at least sound clueless and as if they were talking about an alien species.
What Sigmund said (#82).
Quite! : D
Sorry, I stand by that unless it is clear and overt using the appropriate language that reasonable people agree is ‘sexist’, it’s just bad manners. Especially when the guys are doing it to each other over non-related issues.
I could see you having a point if they were all peachy-keen, non-violated-choir-boys until the ‘wimmin folk’ started talking. But it wasn’t like that. Rather, it’s another ‘thin skin, much-ado-about-nothing’ charge.
Moses, the post is not about using the word “female.”
Sometimes, oh yes, absolutely. Not always gratuitous and undeserved, though.
Grrr. Must let anger cool off. There, all better. I really hate this increasingly popular claim. It’s not true. Not. True. Not. True. Commenters – including regulars – argue with PZ all the time, tell him he’s missing the point, etc. It’s irritating to see the Pharyngula equivalent of the theist’s favorite argument, “You all just worship whatever Dawkins says ECHO CHAMBER blahblahblah” showing up here. It’s bullshit.
Yep, Pharyngula’s a rough and tumble place. Yep, it’s sometimes “out of control” (for whatever value of “control” one thinks it ought or ought not have). But it is most definitely not an echo chamber for worshipful approval of everything PZ says, and I wish commenters I really respect would stop sounding so sniffy and pat-themselves-on-the-back-y by perpetuating that silly claim.
I thought it was just a joke, Josh, and kind of funny. Anyway Sigmund has a sort of golden ticket, after the Hitler in the bunker video. Do admit. :- )
I watched about half the video, but it got very tiresome with all that male blathering on. I did see a woman in the audience make a face the first time one of the male panelists mentioned “females.” As a noun, it makes women sound like lab specimens. The whole panel discussion was sexist and pointless. Women were needed to keep it on track and relevant.
Oh, gosh, mea culpa. Looks like I’m grumpier than I thought over all this unpleasantness and idiocy surrounding the sexism question. Sorry Sigmund – my humor meter was turned off. I’ll be sure to re-set it:)
With respect Josh but you are talking complete bollocks on that last point. I never made a claim about it being an echo chamber, simply that it was a place where gratuitous insults are easy to come by. I don’t doubt that regulars occasionally openly disagree with PZ but what I’ve noticed is that it is very easy for a non regular to get
labeled as a troll or an idiot for making very mild criticisms of something PZ has written. It’s only a small number of people who seem to have made it their job to police pharyngula in this way and I guess, given the number of real trolls and religiots that pharyngula attracts, there is a reason behind the attacks on those who ‘might’ be trolls. I’ve been attacked a couple of times there, despite posting exactly the same sort of stuff there that I post on here and WEIT.
I don’t even think this is a pharyngula specific problem- any really popular message board tends to end up with these sort of issues so why expect pharyngula to be any different.
So there was a forum on how to attract more women into atheism that had the panel filled with guys, sounds like a panel on what to do about Gnu Atheists with only accomodationists and religious people on it…
Whoops!
Damn this tiny iphone keypad. Sorry Josh, I guess we were talking at crossed purposes.
I wonder how that woman was chosen for the panel? I can easily imagine someone an hour earlier saying, “Wait! We forgot to get a woman for our panel” and someone else saying, “Let’s ask ‘Sally’–she’s always agreeable.”
There were a lot of women in the audience and I think they were there because they expected a substantive discussion, not maundering irrelevancies and half-assed excuses for hitting on women whenever they show up. I agree with whoever said this was not a well-prepared panel.
@Jenavir, just to clarify, I did NOT think the woman on the video was aggressive etc, I feel like some womens’ reactions on the internet since the incident have been overreacting. I think that misunderstanding set you off on the wrong track about what I thought. It is, however, rather sexist to accuse men of being sexist because they aren’t sensitive enough for some womens’ delicate feelings, instead treating women like the equals I thought us women wanted to be treated like. And “mansplaining” is not only a totally lame word, its also sexist enough that its rather funny to hear chicks complain of feeling dismissed for being called female, while they merrily dismiss guys as “mansplainers”. Like I said, I just don’t get it. I’m from New Zealand (maybe we’re less sexist?), 23, married, & I’ve never actually experienced sexism. Maybe my generation in NZ are just enormously liberated & equal and all, & so I’ve never had anyone attempt to dismiss or oppress me. Either way, the reason why this incident turned into such an enormous shitstorm escapes me. So @Jenavir, its certainly not that I think women shouldn’t speak for themselves (wtf? Where did you get that idea?), it’s that I think a mountain has been made out of what is no more than a medium-sized molehill.
Jolo, PZ used the same thought experiment in his post. Exactly. Imagine having a bunch of Christians telling atheists all about atheism. Yeah thanks but I think I’ll ask someone else.
You typed all that on an iPhone, Sigmund?! Your thumb muscles must be huge. I type one sentence and my hands are aching.
I’ve heard that New Zealand was more sexist; when I considered emigrating there, I was told that I’d have a harder time supporting myself in my technical field of choice because of job discrimination. But that was a generation ago. (Spell checker suggested “sealant” for “Zealand”!)
Sigmund did the “Hitler in the Bunker” video? I loved that. Homeopathy FAIL.
James Sweet (#100), think the fastest way to break the habit is to go to several events with the goal of finding out what other people think, well enough to retain it and explain it to others afterwards. Expressing your bright ideas must not interfere with the goal.
Melissa
But what of it? Do you think this post is overreacting? If so, why? If not, why mention that other reactions are overreacting? Why not address this post instead of reactions in general?
@Monado, as far as I’m aware, NZ is very equality minded in all sorts of issues, especially in womens rights, after all (I think!) we were the first country where women got the right to vote. I also think that kiwi chicks are usually too outspoken & strong for guys to dare risk being sexist towards, in my generation anyway. Career-wise there may still be discrimination, but as I’m a stay-at-home mum right now, I wouldn’t know. We also have shitloads of atheists here and little to no religious interfering in the political arena – it’s a good place to live! Lol, & thus ends my patriotic NZ is awesome ramble.
People overreacting on the Internet? Well I never!
@Ophelia, you make a good point. I guess I just wanted to weigh in as a woman who doesn’t agree with what seems to be general female consenus out there at the mo. I do in fact think that your post was a good one that raised some valid points to mull over. I apologise that I didn’t make that clear, & if my original post was too off the topic I apologise for that. I wasn’t trying to derail or anything. Again, I was just giving my opinion on the whole situation in general.
Thanks Melissa. No problem! I would say that it’s not a consensus though – there seems to be a lot of disagreement. (But I think a lot of it is over the fairly minor issue of whether “female” was sexist or not, which is why I bracketed that in order to talk about the session more generally [that 12 minutes of it at least] which seemed pretty damn sexist to me, albeit unconsciously.)
I love the Pollyanna atheist attitude of: I live in blah blah blah and have never in my life experienced sexism or racism or hatred or poor people, and so I just don’t understand what all the fuss is!
P Z Myers, in his Feminist hypersensitivity or masculine obtuseness? article used the word YOUR twice with respect of your organisation. i do not think he should have done that; as it would appear to me to be subliminally reinforcing the opposite of what he was really desperately trying to get across to the men. From my stand-point, anyway. The organisation belongs to the women and men – it is not the organisation of the men. Even if the women are fewer than the men – it still does not belong to the men.
Re: NO 609) RD’s Comment & others over at Pharyngula on this very subject
Richard Dawkins went running or walking or whatever, to a gentleman’s site to express his very interesting evolutionary theories on wo/man.
Which made me understand it a lot more from that perspective. Nonetheless, it did cross my mind, that it would have achieved it’s object somewhat more graciously, had he generously graced the sites of the chief women instigators, namely, that of Blag Hag and OB. Just an observation!
@Ophelia – I still think sexist is a pretty strong way to put it, especially if any sexism that might have occurred was unintended, but a poorly thought-out panel choice, & badly moderated etc I can totally agree on. It was not a successful panel discussion any way you look at it! @Egbert, if your post referred to me… I can find evidence for racism in all sorts of countries, violations of womens rights in some countries, & poor people? I’m one of those, although not 3rd world poor. When I say I don’t get where the sexism is, it’s because I don’t see any evidence of it in NZ, or in most western/1st world countries like the US. But then of course, I can’t really speak for any place other than the one I live in I suppose.
MelissaF,
You don’t see evidence that there is sexism in NZ and first world countries like the US? Oh dear. I don’t know where to start.
Jolo, Monado et al: The panel wasn’t put together specifically to discuss that question, it was “an “Attendees’ Choice” panel discussion, featuring five local group leaders”, who discussed questions chosen by the attendees. That doesn’t make it a good panel (more women should get a chance to be on these things regardless of the questions), but in the interest of improving things in the future, it’s probably better to be clear on the causes.
PZ says:-
It’s not the place of ‘men’ to give ‘women’, “your” attention. That’s like saying in a kind of way, that it is men’s place to open doors to women. So it seems to me. Almost, as if they were the superior alpha man and therefore it was their given right to give their attention to the lesser weaker mortals.
To me some very highly educated women themselves buy into this lesser weaker mortals roles. Thus opening wide the doors to let the men get away with this kind of thinking and behaviour. One would think automatically that the educated women would know differently. However, it seems like they obviously don’t; because, when you hear them talking about having to adhere to their spouses wishes. Having to be obedient to their spouses at all costs; while with the other breath, preaching ethical principles to the world. You wonder what the philosophy of these women really are behind closed doors. So conflictual! Perhaps they are prisoners of their backgrounds, just like the men who undermine women, seem to be, from my summation. So many women would not know that sexism was steering them in the face if you pointed it out to them a thousandfold. Sexism is ingrained in the language, the home, the workplace, the church, the playing field, the golf’-course. Everywhere you look, it abounds. As Mary Byrne shouted out from at the top of her voice at the last X Factor contest., of which she was a strong older one woman act “It’s a Man’s World”.
@Egbert, no, I really don’t. Sure, there will always be issues that pop up every so often, but I don’t see a culture of sexism, certainly not to the extent you seem to. I admit I haven’t studied feminist issues extensively, & if you have then you may be more aware/knowledgeable than I am. But as a female, I have not experienced sexism, and I haven’t had any female friends experience sexism (excepting sexist comments from men who are just assholes to everyone regardless of gender). I know thats only anecdotal, but I think it still counts for something being as I am a woman, so if there were a culture of sexism I’m not sure how I would be unaware of it.
Out of curiosity, how many specifically atheist conferences have you all attended? Because in my experience, they have all been painfully boring. At least for me.
Yeah, Eric passed that remark about the banality and boredom of the video.
I was reading up on sexism and tripped lightly upon Whorfianism.
The principle of linguistic relativity is the idea that differences in the way languages encode cultural and cognitive categories affect the way people think.
Wilhelm von Humboldt declared in 1820:
MelissaF,
I (and the majority of people here) can find numerous examples of sexism against women, in the west, from genital mutilation, forced marriages, domestic violence, discrimination in employment and pay, to something more milder, like a stupid sexist joke.
There is a movie out called I Spit on Your Grave (2010) which is an example of just how disturbing sexism can become, so disturbing that it is questionable that an actress be subjected to an hour of such ‘simulated’ abuse simply to please the horror market.
I’m aware of the appalling violent sexism that exists both in the west and Islam, but I’m not so aware of the more subtle forms highlighted in the original post (for which I think for bringing to my attention). But for you to not recognise any such sexism in the west, that makes me feel that there is even greater urgency for a conscious raising.
Michael – ha! Good point. In my case, none, but what you say sounds plausible. Then again I’ve seen videos of particular atheist speakers, and they certainly weren’t as boring as that. I don’t even think I’m as boring as that when I Speak.
No one here has “delicate feelings”. Why is my opinion that the panel is sexist a mere “delicate feeling,” but your opinion that it’s somehow sexist to call men sexist isn’t?
That sort of talk is just an excuse for dismissing others’ opinions when they think something is sexist and you don’t. I object to the panel, not because of my “delicate feelings”, but because of my reason and sense of justice. Or perhaps you’re not talking about me; you’re talking about these hypothetical other women elsewhere on the internet. Either way, it’s dismissive and irrational. Nothing I’ve read reflects “delicate feelings” or making a mountain out of a molehill. Why is making sharp or even angry comments about sexism making a mountain out of a molehill? If it is, then why doesn’t your commenting qualify as an overreaction, resulting from your “delicate feelings”?
You may not have experienced sexism in New Zealand but you are certainly very good at perpetrating it. It is sexist to attribute women’s opinions to their “delicate feelings” and not to their thoughts. Your talk of “delicate feelings” doesn’t really make me trust you when you say you’ve never experienced sexism. It makes me think you probably experienced it but didn’t notice it, because you apparently don’t notice when you yourself are being dismissive in a way that has sexist undertones.
And “mansplaining” is a term used for men who explain things to women because they automatically think they know better than women. It’s a term used to critique sexism. No one is dismissing anything and everything men say as “mansplaining.” You’re creating your own straw-hysterical female to argue against because you want to pretend that complaining about sexism is the same as being sexist against men. It isn’t.
To support Egbert’s point, in NZ specifically the Louise Nicholas rape case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Nicholas) shows that there is, at the very least, a problem with disrespect for sexual assault survivors among the police there.
And just to clarify my point here: I have no objections to substantive debates over whether something is sexist or not. I realize there’s often space for disagreement there (though I haven’t heard a remotely convincing argument that this particular panel didn’t show some sexism).
I do object to cries of “you’re oversensitive” and the ludicrous contention that criticizing a man for being sexist is somehow itself sexist. Even if you don’t agree with the critic, it’s not sexist to argue that something is sexist. Nor are we mean man-hating feminazis oppressing the poor menz by asking them to actually think before they talk.
How do we make everyone comfortable and why should we have too? There are some issues I just can’t take seriously and getting all fussy about using a word like female or male just seems nit picky to me. I mean the only thing I can think of to make everyone feel comfortable when talking about womens issues is to not get upset about words in none insulting contexts. In fact I’d say embrace them as your own. I don’t think I’d ever see Harvey Milk get up set about being called queer (or Anne Kronenberg for that matter.) I also don’t think Martin Luther King got upset about being called black. I think they’d view those words as words of empowerment and embrace them; not start fights over them. They wouldn’t get upset and draw a line in the dirt. This thing has only caused tension on the blog-o-sphere and from what I witnessed (I was there) most people, male or female, didn’t seem to mind at all.
Now I can see how you can say “Well that doesn’t make the majority right.” Well yeah but it doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Consider: I don’t get upset when some Christian tells me I’ll burn in hell I just tell them I’ll see them there. I also don’t get upset when I get called a heathen. No I relish those moments and say “yes I am a heathen.” rather proudly. What I’ve found is people who really have a problem with Atheists get upset when I accept the fact that I am a heathen or play my knowledge of the bible against them. Those who don’t mind just smile, laugh, or rather humble admit they take religion on a matter of faith. I think females should feel the same about words like female or women. So what I’m saying is in a situation like this instead of blowing the whistle and calling sexist or getting upset just say “yes I am female deal with it” or “yes I am female but that doesn’t mean I’ll make you a damn sandwich.” and by taking that approach I don’t see how the context of the word in this panel is anything offensive or could be considered uncomfortable.
As for the panel I’m disinclined to believe that the SERAM organizers had arranged it liked that. Why? The college panel was stacked 4/2 with males being the minority. That and we also voted on who would be on the panel. (We voted on a male because we have no female leadership. We try but no one will run. How do we fix that? I don’t know.) So I think this panel was 6/1 because each group, respectively, selected a male. I mean everyone has said they had no prior knowledge to the questions being asked. I mainly feel this way for two reasons. One the organizers have said thea each member was selected by their groups. Secondly there was one guy who claimed he had more female members then male. (This was after the snarky comment) Yet he, a male, had been put on the panel and I think that is quite simply how their group voted. So I’m will to give them the benefit of the doubt. Especially considering how everyone greeted one organization getting a new female organization with open arms and how many, as previously mentioned, the college panel was mostly female.
Also it was not a locker room. It was a large conference room with the doors all open and tables selling stuff or promoting their group. Like SSA, or AA was. No one was closed in and people came and went how they chose. I know I ditched out for coffee once or twice. Also also this sentence bugs me: “I can see that it’s not a slam-dunk that the word “female” is necessarily sexist.” Makes me think you’re looking for a reason for the word to be sexist. Also also also I’m writing this because I honestly do care about this topic but to me this doesn’t seem like a battle to fight. It honestly just seems like people are looking for fights. But this is just how I observe it. Perhaps you can make me feel otherwise.
Ugh. Should have edited this in Word first. I can’t read what I write half the time in this little comment box. So if you have need for me to clarify I’ll be happy to do so and I apologize for the bad grammar.
No, I’m not looking for a reason for the word to be sexist. I was saying something about what I take to be a comparatively small issue because that issue was already out there; I was making a concession before moving on to the larger and more important issue.
It’s not about being “comfortable.” I haven’t said anything about being comfortable. It’s about not letting atheism be yet another male monopoly out of sheer stupidity and laziness and not bothering.
Speaking as a loud-mouth myself, I think you should know it’s not all roses on our side. I, for one, have trouble hearing people that don’t speak up.
So I try to remember to let others speak; but for your part, you should remember to raise your voice so I can hear you. Communication is a two-way street.
That’s an astonishingly ignorant and specious comparison to make. Guess what pal – you don’t get to call me “queer.” Straight people don’t get to call me “queer” in public conversation. You don’t get to decide whether or when I reclaim a word, and if I do, you don’t have carte blanche to use it to refer to me. “Queer” is also not equivalent to “black”: queer started out as an epithet straight people hurled at us gay folks. Black had no such history.
Lemme guess, you’re a straight white guy?
Is there such a thing as being nit-picky about usage? Anytime we’re discussing usage in the English language, it seems to me, we’re going to end up talking about details and nuances.
Martin: “I think females should feel the same about words like female or women.”
Any oher things you’d like to tell us how females should feel about?
I find using the word female as a noun both irritating and unnecessary. There’s a perfectly good word for a woman, you know, “woman”. And if you really honesty care about this topic, please read some of the objections some women have for the use of female as a noun. And maybe refrain from telling women how they should feel about things. It’s not the best way to make them feel welcome and respected.
Also the panel was not almost all guys. In fact none of the panelists were called guy. So that’s wrong as well.
@Ophelia Benson Okay so what has this entry, or PZ’s entry done to change anything? The original got people talking and caused an uproar. (I think they did it rather unjustly and cause a number of none related issues for people involved in SERAM but whatever it got people to talk.) So the dust has been kicked and what is this blog post doing to promote your cause? I see no advice for groups on how can diversify. I’ve heard no call to arms from women to come out of the atheist closet. I see no discussions only mud slinging, mob mentality, and stupid bickering like whose sexist and who isn’t. I see people getting so emotional they can’t think straight and yelling at people who honestly want to help. I have seen no good feelings come out of any of this. Only separation. I’ve tried to discuss with people as to why this specific even isn’t such a big issue and how I don’t see how this is helping anyone. I never get an answers either; just rage filled rants and emotions. So how does this help the cause? Especially now that planned parenthood is looking at budget cuts.
@Josh Solcum You’d be right I am a straight white male, this doesn’t mean I’m not in the right. Would Harvey Milk ever feel ashamed to say he was Queer? Would he ever revel in shock at the premise that someone called him that? From what I’ve seen (Life and Times of Harvey Milk, great documentary) no he wouldn’t have. He’d say “You’re damn right I’m Queer.” People I know do the same thing. They don’t let a word like that offend them. Okay you get offended by it. But if they don’t get offended and you do who is in the right? Are they right and you’re over acting? Or are my friends just not Gay activist enough? Or perhaps no one is in the right? But let me digress from that little. Now why did I choose black instead of the N word? Well as I understand it the N word was invented for the soul purpose of being a racial slur. That words history has always been offensive. Queer’s history wasn’t always offensive.
It wasn’t until the late twentieth century that the word came to mean a negative connotation. So there is about 3 decades of negative history and the rest, arching back to the 16th century, is not negative. Why does the history of the word make any difference? Well honestly it shouldn’t but it is a touchy issue. Some people don’t care, others do. So back to what I was saying: My argument is that there are contextual situations that, when the words is used, don’t call for outrage. Further more even if the context does call for outrage I’d say instead of acting with anger, remain calm and proudly take the word as your own. You will get more done, upset and a fool of the people who threw the insult, and ultimately show that there isn’t anything that can be done and you’re here to stay. THAT is what Harvey Milk did as an activist, and that is the way I think it should be done. I think the Atheist movement should react this way, I think the gay movement should act this way, and I think the feminist movement should act this way. I also never called you queer. In fact I never once referred to anyone on this site as queer. Don’t put those words in my mouth.
And another thing! Just because I’m a straight white male doesn’t mean a damn thing! White males have less to lose in the social culture then someone of a different race or gender. That means I’m very verbose. And yes sometimes I fuck up and say something insulting. Correct me. If they are truly sympathetic they will listen. Don’t just say “Oh you’re just a straight white male.”Calm down, stop with the double standards, be rational, and give them the facts. You haven’t done that yet. You got emotional on me. YOU showed me spite just like I’m showing you irritation. But if my opinion and idea doesn’t hold merit, if it isn’t logical and ration; give me the facts as to why. I would love to know why taking the work Queer and making it word of power IS a bad thing.
I (nor any other person here) do not have to do your homework for you. Google “Feminism 101” (you will get a considerable number of very good hits) and read what you find thoughtfully, then try to be less verbose. Because that verbosity isn’t “just you”, it’s patterned, it’s learned and rewarded by society, and maybe you should think about why it’s so hard for you to take advice like “don’t tell women (or other minority group) how they should feel about things, even if it’s just a thought experiment of “if I were a woman/person of color/whatever…” and maybe just listen to the people who actually have to live this everyday for a while”.
Also, language history fail on “queer”. I guess the good news is that reclamation of ‘queer’ has been successful enough for Martin to be able to pontificate wrongly on its history. The bad news is people like Martin are out there pontificating wrongly on a whole number of things.
@Hertta I do apologize for making it seem like I’m telling but like I said “I think.” It is an opinion, a view point. Also I did read many of the problems people had with the word female but I still don’t see the issue. I mean I do see the issue but I don’t see why it is an issue. It seems to me the word is being twisted to mean something negative just off handily. Female means women in the original Latin and women means to be female. So depending on the context I think the words or very interchangeable. There are times things are said in certain contexts that are sexist. Okay lets put it this way: Yes I am a white female, but what makes my suggestion wrong. Instead of taking offense whenever someone says that word that you embrace it. That when the context of it isn’t meant to be offensive why take offense? It seems to me the most successful movements in history always embraces the words they were offended by and made them their own. So it is my suggestion that these words be taken up and turned into unoffensive words. I honestly feel like I’m failing to explain myself. Hmm more then likely I’ll get a swarm of comments about my last post, and this one, to. I’m going to have to find the exact way to phrase this again. Again I apologize I didn’t mean to seem like I’m telling you how to think and I didn’t mean to imply I was.
@Andy Dufresne I think there is a point where we can get into the nit picky portion of linguistics. The English language is very much a bastard language and words can easily be shaped to be mean something you don’t mean at all. I think that is one of the biggest hindrances of Philosophy. They often get caught up in linguistics.
@dirigible: Damn it you’re right! Well then how about this? “The panel was mostly male.”
@MyaR I’ll read the sites but it will take some time to dig through them to get to my issue. I also don’t agree with you calling me on history. 1930’s Queer came to refer to homosexuals but it didn’t seem to take a massively derogatory meaning till 1973. If I’m wrong about the history then so aren’t my sources. (Dictionary.com, Wikipedia, several gay and lesbian bloggers all from google) Oh and I do listen. Most my opinions come from talking to people about this and usually this topic makes or breaks a friendship. I have made plenty of friends because they’ve agree, and I’ve angered a lot of people because they didn’t agree. I formed these opinions of activists and conversations I’ve had with people. These aren’t just “Oh look what I thought up statements.” Anyways I’m going to have to take a break from this for a good while.
@ Martin: You know what you just did? You dismissed that I don’t like the word female used as a noun as “not helping” and wrote a thousand words on what you think minorities should do because you think you know best.
Martin – here’s a little tiny hint – the length of your comments is way out of proportion to their skill and erudition and persuasiveness and interestingness. In other words, you’re talking way too much for what you have to say. Which is kind of where we came in…
So yeah, having an origin from a sense of the word that meant ‘anything wrong, nasty, bad or worthless’ is not massively derogatory, but just a simple word to describe the sexual orientation of someone. (From World Wide Words, the site of Michael Quinion, one of the foremost etymologists around.)
That’s a cop-out. You think this particular opinion matters, enough to lecture at length about it. You think this opinion is superior to other people’s opinions. You think it would be better for women to adopt your opinion as theirs. This is crystal clear from your writing. “It’s just an opinion” is the coward’s way out of a losing argument.
I don’t think the problem is that we don’t understand what you’re trying to say. The problem is you’re not trying to understand what anyone else is saying to you.
No, you’re just trying to give helpful suggestions – before trying to find out whether your help is needed, wanted or appreciated.
Martin:
I was born in 1946, and the word “queer” was used in a negative sense about gay people ever since I can remember, well before 1973. In fact, when I was a child, just about every word that “normal” people used to refer to gay people was negative.
Jesus Christ on a stick, I can assure you, Martin, that the term “queer” was massively vicious and derogatory well before 1973. I can vouch for my own distinct memory of how the term was used when I was growing up in the 1960s, but it’s pretty plain that it goes back long before that.
What has changed is that the ordinary usage of “queer” to mean simply “peculiar” has largely been driven out, but that’s a separate issue.
One of the most telling outcomes to this incident is the utter defensiveness of some of the people involved, like the sole woman on the panel and some of the other organisers, including the one who put up the video with the annotations. Their spluttering outrage and offensiveness – like on the blog linked on the first post here- is indicative of a massive attitude fail and in itself substantiates the charge of underlying sexist attitudes.
Did that Heath Holden person even apologise for his sexist wisecrack? No it is all excuses for his behaviour and vitriol at Jen and the two women who put up the original post at Blaghag. Like many others, it didnt strike me that the word female could be ‘sexist’ but I did read through the many posts explaining why and in what contexts it was problematic and am now more educated on the issue. But that in itself was a minor point compared to how that totally inadequate panel hmmed and hawwed and passed the buck on how potential sexual harassment was offputting to women joining atheist meetings. Did anyone note the exclusive use of ‘girls’ by one panel speaker who spoke for so long and yet tapered off realising that he had made no point whatsover? Or the numerous times the panel came back to the issue of meeting and dating likeminded women as if that was the question put to them?
And from the way that Martin above pontificates, I wouldnt be entirely surprised to learn he was one of the panellists. Same poor excuse making.
Martin you’re still not getting it: Not being gay, you do not have to capacity to decided which ways of reacting to the word queer are good and what are bad. You just don’t have it. Same goes for the word female. Same goes for the n-word.
I just read about / watched this and entirely agree with you Ophelia. I found the panel shockingly sexists, and was surprised that others didn’t see fault in it. It’s made me think much more carefully about when and how I use my voice in situations like that.
Here is what this fiasco brought to my mind:
http://blackpeopleloveus.com/
I have spent about two hours reading all the blog entries and a lot of the comments after them. I think my head is going to explode now. It was a mistake to have that loud, domineering man on the panel during a discussion of what keeps women away from atheist organizations. The minute he opened his mouth, I was reminded of every bullying, testosterone-raging woman-crushing man who ever successfully humbled me into my “place”. Like the guy at the Georgia indoor shooting range who wanted to brief me about how to stand properly while shooting, before I went into the shooting stall. “HOW’RE YA GUNNA STAND?” he hollered at me. When I planted my feet, he TRIED TO PUSH ME OVER WHILE I WAS HOLDING A LOADED GUN. A little while later, my sister-in-law had a problem with her gun, and he went off on her a little bit until we discovered that it was the GUN. I’ve been treated as such by auto mechanics, professors, male classmates, and on and on. This guy sounded like all those dickheads, and if I could have sympathized with him for not being able to help having a loud voice, I’d have revoked that sympathy the minute he made his moronic “weaker sex” joke. Ellen DeGeneres, in response to someone who says, “I was JUST KIDDING!” said, “Well, you should stop, because you’re not good at it. If you were, we’d both be laughing.” I would have loved it if ALL the women in the room had stood up and walked out just after he made his joke. What a statement that would have made. Next time, ladies…The woman who stood up and took issue with her perceived over-use of the word “females” may have some personal history with that. I can picture it–a woman in a workplace made up mostly of men hears them banter about “females” with an unmistakeably objectifying, dismissive tone. Who has ever heard a group of men stand around talking about women, saying, “The females at Will’s Pub last night were SO FUCKING SMART. I just wanted to tap those brains.”What is this? It’s not simply men v. women. I always feel like an equal around the gay men in my life. My husband is not sexist. My dad is, sometimes. My brother’s not. Women can always tell.
I hope your head doesn’t splode, Sarah! I know the feeling, and that’s exactly why I read only a sampling of posts and comments.
I’m going to stay the hell out of this one — I’m not female, after all. I’m very interested in the views of women on both sides of the issue. I must say, though, that I do find it more than a bit ironic that so many of the “white males need to shut up” posts cite PZ Myers’ pronouncements as support for their stance!
It’s not all that ironic: PZ puts his money where his mouth is. He leans on organizers to invite women to speak; he nags; he reminds. He has some influence and he uses it.
I’m a nobody who just picked this controversy up after reading Pharyngula for the first time yesterday, but I won’t let that stop me from bumping this to weigh in.
@Martin:
“Queer” is like “nigger” or “bitch.” These are words that members of a group are allowed to call each other, but are hugely offensive when someone from out of the group uses it. Women call each other bitches as a way of saying “fuck you” to society negatively labelling strong, outspoken women as bitches. The offensive nature of the word is what makes identifying with it so powerful. It says “I am what I am, and I’m damned proud of it.”
As for the use of “females” instead of “women,” I view it the same way I view half-naked cheerleaders at sporting events. It’s not offensive, per se, but rather unwelcoming. It says my gender and I are mere visitors and far from fellow shareholders. I don’t refer to men as “males.” It’s demeaning, as if they’re nothing more than the sum of their biology and lack intellect or personalities. Naturally, I’d find “females” just as alienating.
A link to a Gnu Emperor post was linked by OB, in response to a commenter asking what royalist meant.
I thus spotted therein:
I thought that (Think gays calling themselves “queer.”) was so out of place, especially when it was coming from a ‘convert’ who incidentally said, some years ago, in the blogosphere, that she had a mind-shift concerning same. I really felt that she was not mostly deserving of someone who should get to apply this analogous terminology. From my perception, she didn’t earn it. Highlighting it in brackets to boot! It kind of ties in with what Ridley says – to me, anyway.
[…] the women have been offended? Probably, but […]
(Sorry I’m late to the game.) Yes, immediately after the panel I went to the lady & apologized. I told her that I was sorry for offending her explaining that I meant it as a bit of levity in an awkward moment & had no idea that she would find it offensive. She told me (paraphrased) “It’s OK. I shouldn’t be so thin-skinned. It’s OK.” I told her again that I was sorry. I thought that was the end of it until the blaghag post came out a couple of weeks later.