Good news! The leaders of the secular movement have gone to the mountaintop and returned holding a stone tablet engraved with wisdom for us to behold. Go read it, and maybe read this response from Secular Woman and this response from Secular Census, both of which are very good. Then maybe read this, or whatever:
A Problem with Stone Tablet Communication
The fact that large organizations in this movement communicate via stone tablet presents unique challenges. For one, it can be difficult for those of us at the bottom of the mountain to understand what, exactly, went into the making of the tablet. For instance, if the tablet references the harassment of women in this movement, how many of the harassed women were consulted, if any? I know that Secular Woman was shut out of the tablet-etching process, so my hopes aren’t high. If this harassed woman had been asked, though, I may have made the following suggestions:
- The problem is not just the Internet. I’m not the only one who feels this way. If we don’t take the initiative to solve our “real world” problems, those problems will continue to leak over into the Internet, and vice versa.
- If secular leaders want to show they care about women’s equality, they should stop etching tablets and start actively participating in the massive feminist fight against the Religious Right that is currently happening in the US and elsewhere. Barry Lynn, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, isn’t listed on the open letter. I assume it’s because he was too busy making reproductive justice one of AU’s core issues. In fact, I just stopped typing this post for a few minutes so I could go donate $25 to AU. You should, too.
- There is no “debate over sexism” within this movement. People who don’t think sexism exists in this movement have no response to the massive amounts of evidence women have provided to illustrate the problem. There may be slight disagreements concerning things like, “How can we best help women feel welcomed in our community,” but . . .
- We cannot begin to discuss the tone of slight disagreements in our community unless and until secular women can prominently express unpopular viewpoints without receiving an avalanche of slurs and threats. Merely stating that slurs and threats are bad does not help this problem. Moderating blogs and forums is a good start, and I’m glad that some of the co-signers have apparently changed their minds on that point, but it’s not enough. Until this movement as a whole recognizes, condemns, and successfully marginalizes that behavior, we cannot demand that women tone down their comparatively mild responses on these issues.For instance, dear atheist leaders, if every hour of every day for a year someone randomly called you a disgusting heathen, told you you deserved to be raped by dogs, gave you pamphlets about burning in hell, and told you that your life was worthless and you should kill yourself, would you be ready for a calm and rational conversation with your neighbor, who just wants to tell you that you’d make more friends if you weren’t so angry all the time? Would you always be charitable to him? Would you respond to a defamatory article about you in the local paper, not with a fact-correcting op-ed, but with a polite, private phone call to the author? If you think you would, I congratulate you on having lived a life thus far free from persecution or harassment.
Once all that is taken care of, I think the tablet looks great. I’m a big fan of moderating blogs and forums. I’m a big fan of listening, and helping others, and being charitable, and those things are so, so easy to do in a community where I’m not relentlessly attacked from within. For instance, the disagreements I have with other feminists are by and large productive and interesting. Maybe one day I can say the same about secularists.
Featured image grabbed from AU’s current front page.
“If secular leaders want to show they care about women’s equality, they should stop etching tablets and start actively participating in the massive feminist fight against the Religious Right that is currently happening in the US and elsewhere.”
Yes, this exactly! I cannot tell you how many conversations I’ve had with people about “our priorities.”
Yeah, you go take the time to teach everyone how to think critically. That’s important. But we can’t sit around and wait for that to work while women are losing rights all across the country! It’s about time the secular community starts acting on that!
Bravo, Rebecca!
All of our responses seem to circle around to the basic theme of “Equality is not up for debate.” I just cannot wrap my head around why that is so hard for some folks to grasp.
Exactly. Please stop telling us to have a “dialogue” with that…especially on a stone tablet.
Well said, Rebecca. Well said.
This reminds me of the Upton Sinclair quote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
The “Open Letter” reads like a cynical political statement, written by a committee that began with the question “how do we position ourselves on this so that we don’t lose any money?” It pays lip service to the idea of being welcoming and safe for all people, while using language designed to set the minds of bigots at ease. There’s nothing in it that calls for action from organizations, or penalties to be leveled against the worst offenders. And it reeks of simple and craven economic calculation: “people with less privilege generally have less cash, and people with more privilege have more cash. If we have to choose to alienate a group, or allow a group to feel alienated and unwelcome, let’s pick the group that can’t actually do us any harm.”
Wow, the statement from Secular Census is particularly well done.
And here I thought I was going to have to write my own response… instead I’ll shamelessly post yours and say “This.”
Thank you for this awesome post.
Since reproductive rights have been a core issue for CFI since … well, since forever, I look forward to receiving your contribution, Rebecca. By the way, look for CFI’s comments on HHS’s contraceptive rule later this week. We’ve put a lot of work into this issue.
The statement was not delivered from a mountaintop. This suggests it’s dogma. CFI doesn’t do dogma, nor do I think most secular organizations do dogma. People can criticize the statement; they can reject the statement in whole or in part. In assessing the statement, however, I hope people will give it a fair reading.
The statement was not intended to solve all the world’s problems. It was intended to address the issue of online conduct, which the signatories recognized is a serious problem — moreover, it’s a problem they believe they can and should address. This does not imply there are not other problems.
If the leaders of secular organizations stay silent, then they are faulted for that. If they unite behind a statement, then they are accused of issuing pronouncements from the mountaintop. If the statement doesn’t address all issues that may be of concern to people in the movement, then, apparently, the statement instantly becomes unacceptable.
Perhaps you should evaluate the statement in its own terms. Is there something specifically mistaken in its contents such that you think it was wrong for the signatories to endorse it .. or is the gravamen of your complaint that it did not include items you think should have been included?
It seems strange to me that the leaders of secular organizations would take upon themselves to instruct other atheists in how to conduct themselves politely online. I don’t think any rational adult (the vast majority of atheists) would accidentally or mistakenly engage in trolling/harassing behavior. I seriously doubt anyone is going to read this statement and say, “Gosh! It never occurred to me that I just need to listen more! Or that I even CAN dial down the drama! Thanks, Leaders of Atheist Organizations!” It verges on victim-blaming – people try to silence me when I express dissenting opinions in atheist communities because I’m just not polite enough. It erases the reported experiences of countless numbers of atheist feminists. It gives a cover for harassers in the community by pretending that they don’t know what they’re doing – they’re just misinformed! If only we’d take the high road!
A Pledge should be a promise from Leaders of Atheist Organizations to their members. It shouldn’t contain (what we call in conflict resolution) “You statements” – “You should”, “You will”, etc. The section titled “Our approach” contains many such “you statements”, along with “we statements” that are really disguised you statements. That is undoubtedly why Rebecca and others interpret this as a list of commandments, not a list of promises. Because that is what it appears to be.
Took the time to collect my thoughts and write a responce and it turns out you expressed exactly what I was going to say!
Yes, this is absolutely right. This is why all of these “Open Letters” end up, at best, falling flat and feeling empty.
Leadership is not about handing out ultimatums, it’s about doing. You want to write an Open Letter about a problem? Make it about what you, the author or signatory, of the letter are doing yourself. An Open Letter is not the format to be telling other people what do to and how to behave.
” Is there something specifically mistaken in its contents such that you think it was wrong for the signatories to endorse it .. or is the gravamen of your complaint that it did not include items you think should have been included?”
I think my post made my criticism clear. And as I’m sure you know, I’ve given a lot to CFI because I support much of the work that you do. I wish other organizations did at least that much.
Hm, seems like replies aren’t working well for some reason…..sorry all, looking into it….
EDIT: nevermind, fixed it!
“The statement was not delivered from a mountaintop. This suggests it’s dogma. CFI doesn’t do dogma, nor do I think most secular organizations do dogma. ”
It also suggests a “top-down, leaders proclaiming to followers” approach, which many organizations DO engage in. This is borne out by your insistence that the problem is with people’s interpretation/reading of your statement, rather than the statement itself. It also seems that you didn’t even look at let alone address the substance of the criticism, you just sort of hand-waved it away with a bunch of “we can’t do anything to satisfy you people” nonsense. It seems like your goal is to appease critics or silence them, not to actually take action to solve the problems that are at the root of the criticism.
“If the leaders of secular organizations stay silent, then they are faulted for that. If they unite behind a statement, then they are accused of issuing pronouncements from the mountaintop.”
I think the more general problem people have is how much of the piece was devoted to what others could do and so little was spent on what you as organisations would do/plan to do/are doing etc.
THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is sexism. The issue is abuse delivered at women for being women, and at their allies for helping women. The fact that some of it takes place online is not the point. The fact that some people will write 5,000-word flowery rationalizations with no potty words to say that rape really isn’t a big deal, or harassment reports are just “distasteful locker room banter,” etc., is much more a problem than someone saying “hey, fuck off, you filthy sexist asshole.” Your misguided pronouncement utterly fails to grasp this fact.
No, I think you are accused of issuing pronouncements from a mountaintop because you apparently failed to get the input of anyone who was actually dealing with the harassment or systemic sexism. I notice here you just whined about the tablets metaphor, without actually saying a damn thing to refute it. Who did you consult? Did you consult anyone? If not, why the hell didn’t you listen to the voices of women who were actually dealing with this before you made your pronouncements? Isn’t it kinda central to empowering women to actually include them? Shouldn’t you have–to use your own advice–“picked up the phone” to talk to them before you said something publicly?!
Seriously–how could you presume to speak up for women in the atheist movement and not even so much as CONSULT Secular Woman? I don’t know how to tell you this…but that is the entire mission of their organization. Did it not occur to you that they might have something of value?! How could you presume to discuss the issue of women getting harassed and fail to approach women who get tons of harassment like Ophelia Benson and Rebecca Watson? REBECCA FUCKING WATSON. Seriously! Look, I hope for a secular community where Rebecca can be justly admired for all the religious and pseudoscientific woo she so brilliantly dismantles (and that she wouldn’t have to take time away from these to address our community’s internal bullshit!), but the fact of the matter is that at the moment Rebecca is chiefly famous for getting slammed with a vicious two-year+ harassment campaign. And you didn’t think to get her opinions ahead of time for how to approach harassment in this community?! WHAT?!
She linked to Secular Woman and American Secular Census’s critiques. Did you not read the links? Generally, when someone links to something with the instructions to read it before their own piece, it means they are writing in addition to what was already said there.
Moreover, Ophelia has some additional critiques here
And PZ also has some good criticisms, here.
Bottom line, you cannot be a friend of both the harassers and the harassed at the same time. As long as the leaders in what used to be the secular movement keep laboring under the delusion that “healing the rifts” is any kind of goal and talking as if “both sides” have a future within the same movement, they are never going to be anything other than part of the problem.
As of this moment, it’s been more than 18-hours since this drive-by scolding based on a reading comprehension failure occurred, with no return by Mr. Lindsay to address the many legitimate points others have raised in response.
Maybe he’s called us all on the phone to discuss this privately?
(I will never find that suggestion not funny.)
Heh heh.
Excellent piece, Ms. Watson. Can’t say anything that would add to that.
Color me extremely disappointed that Mr. Lindsay wasted an opportunity to listen and perhaps glean more understanding of the very clearly outlined issues with the original statement, and chose . … that . .. instead. Disappointing.
Is it cynical of me to think after writing this stone tablet someone thought “Well that ought to do it! Next problem.”?
If someone calls me on the phone to complain about my statements or behavior, the click they hear will tell them they are soloing on the line. I doubt Franc Hoggle or Justin Vacula will be any more accommodating.
NOw I’m wondering:
Did Ron Lindsey call Rebecca before typing here or not?
From the letter:
You’re missunderstanding:
It’s not that I don’t see their “nuance”, it’s that I don’t care (much).
The difference between somebody calling me a c*** and somebody merely saying that the other one is full within his rights to do so and that, while he himself wouldn’t use the word I should just calm down is neglegible.
It’s like being asked to acknowledge that not all pro-lifers are the same because some would allow me to have an abortion if there was a 90% chance that I die…
Having read the “stone tablets” it struck me as being very similar to (one of) the major problems with modern journalism…
When reporting on climate change there must be a nice 50/50 balance between those who say it’s happening and those that deny it…
When reporting on the teaching of evolution in schools there must be a nice 50/50 balance between those who say we evolved and those who think we were poofed into existence by the great pumpkin…
When reporting on whether or not the earth is round there must be a nice 50/50 balance between those who say that it’s an irregular oblate spheroid and those that think its a flat disk sat on the back of four giant elephants who themselves stand on the back of a star turtle…
There are subjects where we know the right answer (or at least know the ballpark the answer is in) and anyone claiming otherwise can, and should be, ignored.
Similarly…
What we have here are people who think that everyone should be treated equally and fairly regardless of sex/gender/geographic origin/ect/ect and those who are sexist bigoted a**holes who post rape and death threats to anyone trying to do anything to achieve the aforementioned equality.
When one side of an ‘arguments’ entire M.O. is to abuse and try to silence the other in clear violation of every value we supposedly share as a group the response should not be to say “lets all sit down and talk about this nicely”… It should be to kick the a**holes out of the group… through the door if there are no convenient windows.
When the people making death and rape threats have been booted from the movement then those left can sit down and do some discussing.
This ‘stone tablet’ contains nothing effective for achieving that.
I think perhaps asking the authors of these tablets if they would have suggested to African Americans in the 60’s that they should sit down with and be civil to members of the KKK… Because their suggestions look to me to be just that stupid.
To be fair, they wouldn’t have asked them to sit down with the KKK. They would’ve asked them to pick up the phone and call the KKK. So they could really get past all their misconceptions and talk like real people.
Back then, the telephone was probably new enough that the suggestion wouldn’t have make our self-proclaimed “leaders” sound like the out of touch dinosaurs they sound like now. “These newfangled intrernets are crude! We can’t express our manly emotions with text! Use carrier pidgeons like a proper gentlemen.”
Conspicuously absent is the phrase “will not be tolerated.” When talking about avalanches of threats and extreme abuse, that is the only rational response.
Wow. Just wow. I see the original letter as a step in the right direction, but wow did they miss stuff. A little more reflection would have been nice.
Thank you Rebecca for responding in a productive and succinct way. I think you have really captured many of our reactions and responses.
Before I start, I’ll say that I too support CFI, and will continue donating.
This declaration is a start. Considering all the different groups, I doubt they could have come up with something more definitive.
There are at least two ways to go from here. First, we can ask each group if they will go beyond the declaration, and address the concerns listed in the post, and by others. We should support those that will do more, and treat the others on a case by case basis. Secular Women comes to mind as a group to support. The other option is to form new groups that will focus more on the issues we’re interested in.
Over all, the statement is a good start, but it only a start.
It is simply fascinating that one of the signers of the letter is DJ Grothe.
In May 2012, DJ Grothe publicly blamed Rebecca Watson, among other feminists, for lowering female registration at TAM. Skepchick had raised thousands of dollars for TAM, Skepchicks had been enthusiastic supporters of TAM, and Rebecca Watson and Surly Amy were both in frequent contact with DJ Grothe over their activities and events to help make TAM 2012 a success. DJ literally had Rebecca’s number and apparently passed on several occasions to discuss the issue with her privately.
So, Ron Lindsay, I am a current member of CFI, a former member of the JREF for many reasons, a former five-time TAM attendee, and I have some issues with the letter.
Oh, heavens, SERIOUSLY?! DJ is part of the problem. DJ is one of the figures we need OUT of the skeptic movement (I don’t say atheist movement because he’s one of the brand of skeptics that wants nothing to do with us!) if we are to make any progress on sexism in this community. It’s not just the way he behaved to Rebecca and the Skepchicks over TAM 2012. There’s his disgraceful gaslighting of Ashley Miller when she told him he should have known about harassment that he personally dealt with. There’s his appalling policing of Greta Christina when a misogynistic troll was making violent gender-based threats at her and her commentariat. Then there’s his stubborn refusal to clarify whether or not TAM would have a harassment policy, and insisting to use an in-house non-publicized one rather than ones that had been praised by people who actually had experience dealing with harassment (and we all know how well that turned out, and how awful TAM ended up being for Surly Amy!). There’s the fact that after Elevatorgate he allowed people who were known to have threatened Rebecca to still attend TAM.
If your statement on getting over sexism in our movement doesn’t address how to get people like DJ Grothe out of positions of influence in our movement until they take a long sabbatical to learn what is wrong with their behavior and attitudes, then your statement has failed. If your statement INCLUDES DJ Grothe it is part of the problem, not just for enabling his status-quo enabling, harassment-minimizing behavior, but that should be a very strong sign that your statement and the values behind it are fucked up.
It’s quite ironic, isn’t it?
Because IIRC at that time when Grothe went after Rebecaa many people said exactly that:
You know each other, you’re kind of friends, you have her godsdamn phone number, why didn’t you call her up and talk to her about that problem you have (thinking that her statements are lowering you attendance), but instead chose to accuse her very publicly?
But apparently it’s always the fault of people reacting publicly especially those at the receiving end of discrimination and harassment.
That#s why that whole “civilty bullshit” serves only the status quo, because the “civilly worded” oppressive bullshit doesn’t get seen as such.
DJ’s support of the slymepit is also one of the reasons I can no longer support the JREF. I am pretty disappointed in the signers of the CFI Open Letter.
He vocally supported them?! Holy crap! Where?
Yeah, where? Hahaha. He hasn’t endorsed an internet forum, especially not one like that.
CultureClash
I diagnose a rampant infection of the “we’re all adults here” syndrome with the writers/carvers of the statement. They sort of know at an intellectual level that there are bullies and irrational people associated with their organisation, but they don’t personally deal with this kind of thing. So it’s very easy to dismiss “extremists” when you never have any contact with them or their actions, and you rarely or never hear or see their words.
It seems to be a weird conflation of the do-gooder, just be reasonable person and the deal with it now and it’s over type of company director. These company directors are the ones who only learn the hard way, if at all, that a bullying workplace will eventually get you a visit from the workplace safety inspectors or a raised insurance premium when one-too-many of your employees.lodges yet another injury or stress claim. Pretending that every incident brought to your notice is just the bad behaviour of isolated individuals and ignoring the corrosive effect of so many, so often, is a recipe for failure.
Back to the KKK reference, a few choice words from MLK. He wasn’t a feminist, but he knew something about fighting for justice.
Rebecca,
I think that your points are valid, but that they don’t address the letter well. There are lots of letters that COULD be written, and probably SHOULD be written, but this letter was addressing the online discourse, with a nod toward the subject that is most often at the center of the worst in online discourse today. With that in mind, I find your criticism to be off the mark:
* The problem is not just the Internet.
No, it’s not, but this letter is addressing the internet. This criticism is like saying “You fed a homeless man in Chicago, but there are people without water in Nairobi.” Your point is valid, but it falls flat as criticism of the person trying to feed people in Chicago.
* If secular leaders want to show they care about women’s equality, they should…
True, and maybe they will, but this letter was about elevating the online discourse. Nobody says they can’t do both.
*There is no “debate over sexism”
Correct, and the letter reaffirms that message.
* We cannot begin to discuss the tone of slight disagreements in our community unless and until secular women can prominently express unpopular viewpoints without receiving an avalanche of slurs and threats
This seems very circular to me – we can’t talk about tone until we eliminate issues of tone. Beyond the circularity, I see no reason to believe that a letter in support of higher quality discourse in any way impedes other efforts, including more direct efforts at eliminating attacks on women.
I enjoy much of what you write, but I really find this criticism to fall flat. It seems to violate the very principles espoused in the letter – principles that I would hope you agree with.
Am I satisfied with this letter as some kind of panacea for the secular movement? Of course not, but I don’t see any of the signatories claiming that it is anything LIKE a panacea – it’s just one more step toward a better movement.
Andy, you’re flat wrong. The letter actively enables debate over sexism in the secular movement. It equates people who have deeply bigoted attitudes about women with people who take a salty approach to calling them out. It mistakes “unpleasantness” for “injustice,” trivializing the latter and ignoring the necessity of the former in many situations. It tries to compel people who are the victim of bias or outright abuse to be “charitable” and to be meek and quiet and “pick up the phone” and preserve the reputations and comfort of those that are marginalizing them (intentionally or not, vituperatively or not. DJ Grothe has probably never uttered an overtly rude sexist slur in this whole discourse, but he is instrumental in minimizing women’s concerns and validating sexists) over actually critically examining the problems in our community with obtaining justice.
This is where you go seriously, fatally wrong in your understanding. The issue with the sexists is not an issue of tone. It is one of CONTENT. The fact is that they have beliefs that they are innately superior to women, and that they don’t deserve to be listened to, and that men shouldn’t have to change what they want for what women need to feel included. This is a problem whether it’s Michael Shermer saying “being intellectually active” is “more of a guy thing” or Richard Dawkins saying “Dear Muslima” and “zero bad” or Reap Paden screaming c*** b**** w****.
“Tone” just means will it offend some church lady. Who the fuck cares? There is a critical difference between calling someone an asshole, which is blunt and crude, but ultimately a criticism of antisocial behavior and attitudes, versus using a slur against an identity that does not harm anyone and has no intrinsic moral standing (race, sexual orientation, gender, body type, disability, etc.).
By the way, fuck the principles espoused in the letter. They are misguided and deeply flawed, and the signatories are fucking irresponsible for putting this out there without the input of those mot directly affected. It will not make a better movement–it will just tell people who are frustrated with how they are mistreated that they have to be better about it, and that these “leaders” prefer appearances and the superficial semblance of calm over actual equality.
“Andy, you’re flat wrong. The letter actively enables debate over sexism in the secular movement.”
As I said below, I don’t see how its content permits debate. It clearly affirms the textbook definition of feminism and the fact that the feminist and secular movements are deeply tied to each other.
“It equates people who have deeply bigoted attitudes about women with people who take a salty approach to calling them out”
Where? This criticism seems to confuse the scope and audience of the letter, irrationally confining it to “the abusers and the victims”. The letter is clearly to the ENTIRE skeptic community. Everybody. It addresses an issue that affects everybody: clearly harmful behaviors that everybody, at some time or another, engages in. If you reject this scope, then you have to address the question: “If YOU saw universal problems with discourse, and wanted to correct them, how would you invite EVERYBODY to raise the level of discourse?”
“The issue with the sexists is not an issue of tone. It is one of CONTENT… There is a critical difference between calling someone an asshole, which is blunt and crude, but ultimately a criticism of antisocial behavior and attitudes, versus using a slur against an identity that does not harm anyone and has no intrinsic moral standing”
That’s a very good point; I misunderstood Rebecca’s argument. Rephrased, it would (?) be “You can’t address universal problems with tone, until after you’ve corrected the terrible content put forth by a subset of the community.”
I wouldn’t say “can’t”, but I can see where if those were the ONLY two problems that a community were facing, it would be irresponsible to first address tone before harm.
That said, the letter doesn’t just address tone, it addresses the prctices of moderation, the practice of verifying claims, and the practice of listening. By the way, these practices aren’t just ‘fluff’. They collectively make the difference between a community that has real, impactful discourse, and reddit.com/r/atheism.
“the signatories are fucking irresponsible for putting this out there without the input of those mot directly affected”
What evidence do you have that this is the case?
“Just tell people who are frustrated with how they are mistreated that they have to be better about it, and that these “leaders” prefer appearances and the superficial semblance of calm over actual equality.”
Again, I find your allegations to be unjustified. The letter didn’t start with “Dear Musliima”, or “Hey Feminists”. There’s also nothing in it to suggest that they seek a superficial semblance of calm. I think you’re interpreting _intent_ and _reception_ far beyond what’s reasonable.
More to the point, I think you’re ignoring the real question: “How do you reduce sexism in the secular movement?”
That is a VERY complex question, and there isn’t going to be one or two or three answers. It’s going to take a lot of things, but this letter certainly isn’t the immoral attempt at dicatorial status-quo-keeping that you seem to imply.
God, you’re so fucking naive. I don’t know how to spell this out any clearer: just stating a definition is worthless unless all the rest of one’s actions demonstrate a clear understanding of how that definition applies to all aspects of what the letter is doing. It fails, and it fails badly, as we have already shown you.
If I saw people being viciously harassed for being female, and other pretend moderates advocating casual, defensive, and thoughtless sexism, and I thought the most important issue to address was inviting “everybody” to “raise the level of discourse,” I’d have to be a fucking asshole.
Closer, I suppose, but frankly ’round here we don’t agree that tone even IS a problem. No problem using as many four-letter words as you want. No problem saying bullshit is bullshit. No need to suffer fools gladly.
Which, by the way, telling people how to moderate their spaces (in the absence of bigotry or abuse) is none of these leaders’ business. Some people LIKE the tone on Pharyngula. Some people prefer strict moderation at Love, Joy, Feminism. People find spaces that fit their tastes. This is a subjective matter of preference that these leaders have no legitimate opinion on. And another thing, “verifying claims” can have some negative associations for women who have to deal with hyperskepticism about how they’re treated. And this elevation of “listening” can often just be telling marginalized people that they have to shut up and pretend that there isn’t a lot of thoughtless assumption going on when privileged people speak. It is a way of turning around the fault of conflicts not on the person who was insensitive, but back on the person who objected, for causing “drama” or not being understanding enough of the person who hurt them. Fuck that.
Hey, you fucking dumbshit–IT’S RIGHT THERE IN THE POST. Rebecca said she wasn’t consulted. Secular Woman said they weren’t consulted. Ophelia and Stephanie Zvan weren’t consulted. None of the signatories on the post are in any way known for dealing with harassment firsthand (except for DJ, who is chiefly known for being hostile to women about speaking up!). Fucking A, tone trolls are dense.
Oooh, lookey here! The tone troll with frequently-pointed out knowledge deficits assures us that he didn’t see anything in the letter to be objectionable! Hey, dude, why don’t you listen to the women who are objecting to it. Why don’t you assume that since you don’t have experience being shut up for being female, those who have decades of experience on this subject might know more than you. Just for starters, reams have already been written about how “pick up the phone” is, apart from anachronistically hilarious, a means of having people with less institutional power be silenced rather than bring their concerns publicly and raise awareness. But if you weren’t so busy tone trolling you’d have figured this out by now. And another thing, this whole–“you can’t speculate about our intent!” Dude, we’re not. We’re saying there are preconceived notions that bolster your thought patterns, of which you are not aware. Remember, intent is not magic. And really, this whole “be charitable!” nonsense is really just telling the marginalized group to turn off their pattern-recognition for problematic behavior, because naturally every instance is a special snowflake and THEY couldn’t possibly be contributing to a chilly climate, now could they?!
A very real start would be: get the leaders in our movement to realize that sexism and harassment are not misunderstandings, and they won’t be solved by dialogue. They will be solved by making our environment unquestionably inhospitable to overt sexists, and to those with unexamined privilege. This would include ditching DJ Grothe, for starters, and making sure conferences don’t invite people who have said stupid, evidence-free shit about women, their abilities, and the value of their autonomy. It would include refusing to admit individuals like Justin Vacula, Ryan Grant Long, Reap Paden, and many others to even REGISTER for a conference, let alone speak at it. It would include showing that harassment gets you complete ostracism, and we reserve the right to decide how long it takes before we’ll give you another shot.
Don’t lecture me, you ignorant, insufferable mansplainer.
Maude, you’re such a willfully ignorant douchenozzle. It’s not that it’s an “attempt” at status-quo-keeping. One of the most basic facts about privilege 101, even just sociology 101, is that preserving the status quo comes naturally to people. The vast majority of the time they don’t realize they’re doing it. We know this letter isn’t consciously trying to silence women, but it is having that effect, and effects matter.
You’re really not worth talking to. I’m respectfully disagreeing with you (and not in a “nice but demeaning” way), and you keep blasting vitriol like its going out of style. The vitriol might even be fine, even if it’s demonstrably counter-productive, but you continue to assume my ignorance of various subjects, AND my stance on unrelated subjects, simply because I arrive at different conclusions.
Let me be clear, I’m not just ‘tone trolling’, I’m not whinging about being corrected, I’m just bored of trying to hold a conversation with someone who goes out of their way to insult, demean, and dismiss me. If you think the community doesn’t have a problem with the level of discourse, I’m not surprised, because this is apparently how you think reasonable people engage in dialogue. It’s not.
Let me put it a different way: bitch about people telling you to be ‘nice’ all you want, but you’re missing the boat: Look at your arguments, look at how you write, look at how you treat other people trying to engage with you, and then compare what you do with the ‘great thinkers’, with those people who have had the most impact in bringing other people into the secular and feminist fold. If you can’t tell the difference between being strident and being an asshole, if you can’t understand that ‘tone’ aside, there is rhetoric that convinces people and rhetoric that drives them away, and you seem to revel in the latter.
Translation: I am tone trolling. You’re being a big poopyhead and using nasty words at me. WAH! I’m so upset I won’t answer your legitimate criticisms of my posts. So there! :-b
Andy, you’re tone trolling, and you’e tone trolling pathetically.
Also, I am not “assuming” your ignorance of various subjects, I am pointing it out with citations. Quick recap: that you apparently think tone is relevant, that you think stating a definition of feminism makes this statement okay, that you didn’t even pick up on the things that are extremely problematic in the statement (just ‘I don’t see a problem’…), much less make an argument for why they’re okay, you didn’t know what the salient argument of the nice-vs.-good piece was (and you thought a piece about something that made no mentions of calling out privilege or examining the dynamics of challenging privilege or the privileged person’s response to it was a comparable article!).
And another thing you’re shockingly ignorant about: “bitch” is a gendered insult, and thus totally inappropriate. I can’t believe you think yourself so high and mighty about being the arbiter of when things are sexist, and then you throw in a term that has AT ITS FOUNDATION an assumption that women are not allowed to be assertive, and that women are contemptible and animal-like when we stand up for ourselves. Epic fail, dude. Epic, ignorant-ass fail.
I’ve also actively argued that the level of discourse is not an issue (so I don’t know what is up with your “if”). It is a phony “issue” and a matter of taste. Moreover, only superficial idiots think swearing has any impact on the level of discourse. Great and profound thoughts can be expressed with profanity, and shallow nonsense can be very polite and use lots of multisyllabic words. You have failed to address any of the arguments put forth in the nice-vs-good discussion.
And if you really were so “bored” you’d just stop talking. The fact that you have to compulsively keep tone trolling says something. And, frankly, I’m not trying to convince you. You swanned into this thread with a great big sign saying “I VALUE STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE! I HAVE NO GRASP OF BASIC FEMINIST ACTIVISM OR THE DYNAMICS OF CHALLENGING PRIVILEGE!” I wrote you off from your first post. I am dissecting for the benefit of other readers why you are Exhibit A in Privileged Douchebros Who Think They Get to Arbitrate Social Norms They Know Nothing About.
Oh, and another thing? “Great Thinkers”? Read some Carlin, read some Shakespeare, read some Mark Twain, read some Alice Walker, motherfucker!
LSP, please avoid the out and out insults like “dumbshit” and keep the discussion chill.
“This criticism is like saying “You fed a homeless man in Chicago, but there are people without water in Nairobi.” ”
that’s a bad analogy because the man in chicago and the man in Nairobi aren’t linked, wheread the problems of the skeptical movement are linked on and offline.
A better analogy would be “You’re going after the people who drink beer and drive, but people are also drinking vodka”.
Great response Rebecca – I also appreciated the response from American Secular Census.
Secular Woman and Secular Census not signing makes me wonder, who exactly wrote this letter? Were the signatories just asked to sign, or was the letter a result of a concerted effort by all parties?
Oh, and rlindsey, did you call Rebecca Watson before posting your comment?
Well said, Rebecca!
As for you, Andy Ewing, suggesting that a degree of rudeness on the internet can or even should be addressed without acknowledging the disease of which it is a symptom is (a) daft and (b) not likely to work.
This is a horrible analogy and I apologise but it is the one which immediately came to mind at that suggestion – it is like painting the toenails of someone whose gangrenous leg is about to drop off.
maureenbrian,
Your analogy assumes that the ONLY cause of crude and hostile discourse on the internet is sexism, a premise which is clearly false.
I think it’s reasonable to say that if the online skeptic community continues to reinforce a standard of discourse that prohibits ALL personal attacks, including sexist remarks and threats, then the incidence of such bad behavior will be reduced. Again, is it a panacea? Of course not, but it IS a small but feasible step in the right direction. To criticize such a step, which has NO clear drawbacks, is to shoot ourselves in the foot.
No, Andy, she is saying that not all crude and hostile discourse is wrong.
By the way, do you even understand what a “personal attack” is? Are you capable of distinguishing hating someone for culturally-marginalized identities, versus pushing back against overtly harmful behavior (for which “you’re being a fucking asshole” is perfectly appropriate). Are you one of those who thinks that to be criticized is to be attacked? Conversely, do you understand that sexist behavior, phrased nicely, is still a much bigger deal than “stop being a fucking asshole”?
By the way, the step has VERY clear drawbacks. I suggest you reread the pieces by Secular Woman and the Secular Census to see how this statement enables harassers. I further suggest that you read what Ophelia Benson has to say about how absurd this stifling of legitimate criticism is with this whole “pick up the phone” nonsense. Stephanie Zvan also has some excellent points about how this attitude entrenches the status quo and lets others be ignored, and also that misunderstanding the source of the problem (some people are deeply uncomfortable with women having power in movement atheism, NOT people are rude on the interwebz) enables people who have these problematic attitudes.
I suggest you read this and correct some deficits in your understanding:
http://www.socialjusticeleague.net/2012/04/the-revolution-will-not-be-polite-the-issue-of-nice-versus-good/
LeftSidePositive
“No, Andy, she is saying that not all crude and hostile discourse is wrong.”
Perhaps I misunderstood the analogy, but I see no interpretation of her argument or analogy that match what you’re proposing that she said. Furthermore, I’m not sure that I asserted otherwise.
Your next paragraph doesn’t really contain argument, and I find your barrage of condescending questions to be premature. I haven’t given any reason to warrant your interrogation. More to the point, the tactic of asking people loaded questions is intellectually dishonest.
“I suggest you reread the pieces by Secular Woman and the Secular Census to see how this statement enables harassers”
I read both pieces. I disagree with the piece by Secular Woman: I think they clearly misinterpreted that entire section of the letter. The letter very clearly identifies that a major source of conflict is over the ‘debate’ of ‘interpretations’ of feminism and the role of feminism in the movement. Then the letter unequivocally reiterates the real definition of feminism and the fact that feminism is inextricably linked to the secular movement.
I also read the letter from the Secular Census, and I emailed them. In the end, they don’t actually disagree with anything in the letter, mostly they just think that it did not go far enough.
“I suggest you read this and correct some deficits in your understanding:”
This is exactly the kind of tone and attitude that the letter is trying to move people away from. Your recommendation is blindly arrogant and insulting, and invites insults in kind, as opposed to a careful consideration of what you said. While hostile or crude discourse is sometimes warranted, it has not utility here, and in fact detracts from productive conversation.
Incidentally, I really like this article on Benevolent Sexism. I think it dovetails with the Nice vs Good article: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psysociety/2013/04/02/benevolent-sexism/
Yes you have given ample reason. You have shown astounding ignorance on what this issue is about. You have not shown that you understand what makes a personal attack bad, and you have not shown you even understand the difference between deservedly harsh language and a “personal attack.” Until you demonstrate some competency in this regard, you are going to get condescended to, because you look really ignorant.
They’re not loaded. At most they’re rhetorical. But it shouldn’t be so hard to answer them, if you had the slightest idea what the important issues here are.
One, if the letter is entertaining ‘interpretations’ of feminism where it’s okay to call women c***s and use other gendered slurs, where propositioning people in elevators is seen as “zero bad,” and that intellectual activity is “more of a guy thing” and women reporting harassment are engaging in “distasteful locker room banter” and the real women are those saying “please keep trying to fuck me” (actual quote by Mallorie Nasrallah, btw, and not out of context–she actively wanted guys not to change their behavior in response to the harassment reports that were coming to light!) and that women’s autonomy isn’t such a big deal in pregnancy, and that harassment policies are the worst thing ever, and that statements on harassment can be drafted and released without learning from or seeking input from those most harassed…then it may pay lip service to a decent definition of feminism, but it’s failing badly at living up to it.
Oh, go fuck yourself, you smug, intellectually incurious little dumbshit. This is EXACTLY why this tone argument is so fucking stupid. You are trying to act like you have something legitimate to offer this conversation, but you’re all style over substance. You are making extremely superficial statements about what being a good skeptic and a good activist is about, and this bullshit statement validates your vapid, let’s-just-keep-things-looking-nice-at-all-costs inability to grasp the fact that you have some serious knowledge deficits. If I was really wrong and you did really understand this, you could have countered it. Instead you just whined.
By the way, if you think that article on Benevolent Sexism was even in the same league as what we’re discussing here, it just shows all the more how much You. Don’t. GET. It. I mean, wow. This is not a question of tone. The issue here is not simply that some marginalization can be “nice”–the issue is that it is vitally necessary to respect the right and the moral validity of the underdog to tell people off and own it. This is why it’s wrong for you to whinge about being corrected when you clearly don’t have the background understanding on these issues to be conversant in them, and yet you feel like your disagreement with the assessment of the sexist repercussions of this open letter is so profound that we (and Secular Census?!) should listen to your pearls of wisdom. This is why it is necessary and good for me to burst your superficially-thinking, self-important little bubble. The article on Nice vs. Good deals with injustice. It deals with the inaccuracies of privileged groups perceiving their own affrontery as equal to injustice. It deals with the impossibility of challenging hierarchical systems in a way that won’t make the privilege feel affronted. This goes way deeper than just slapping up an article on Benevolent Sexism and saying “See! Two sides of the same coin!” Yawn. You’ve got a lot more lurking to do.
Not if the issue is sexism in the community. One can be completely civil, even online, and behave horrendously marginalising.
Insisting everyone remain nice, while failing to take into consideration whole segments of the community, is not a step in the right direction. It’s standing still, both feet firmly planted in the ground.
> Not if the issue is sexism in the community
Sexism in the community isn’t the ONLY issue that the community faces, and the letter is clearly addressing the issue of online discourse. The letter acknowledges that sexism in the community is a significant part of the state of the discourse, which I think was only appropriate, but I see no reason to think that the primary purpose of the letter was to address sexism specifically.
> “Insisting everyone remain nice, while failing to take into consideration whole segments of the community, is not a step in the right direction. It’s standing still, both feet firmly planted in the ground.”
Sure, and if the letter did this, you would have a valid criticism. If fact, however, the letter simply affirmed that the signatories would hold themselves to a universal higher standard of discourse.
They did not “insist that everyone remain nice” or “fail to take into consideration whole segments of the community”.
Are you kidding?
From the letter:
You’re claiming that this applies only to:
David Silverman, President, American Atheists
Rebecca Hale, President, American Humanist Association
Roy Speckhardt, Executive Director, American Humanist Association
Chuck VonDerAhe, President, Atheist Alliance of America
Richard Haynes, President, Atheist Nexus
Ayanna Watson, CEO, Black Atheists of America, Inc.
Mandisa L. Thomas, President, Black Nonbelievers, Inc.
Mynga Futrell, for Brights Central, at The Brights’ Net
Amanda Metskas, Executive Director, Camp Quest
Ronald Lindsay, President and CEO, Center for Inquiry
Tom Flynn, Executive Director, The Council for Secular Humanism
Jan Meshon, President, FreeThoughtAction
Joseph McDaniel Stewart, Vice President, FreeThoughtAction
Margaret Downey, Founder and President, Freethought Society
D.J. Grothe, President, James Randi Educational Foundation
Stuart Jordan, President, Institute for Science and Human Values
Jason Torpy, President, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers
R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Executive Director, Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Edwina Rogers, Executive Director, Secular Coalition for America
August E. Brunsman IV, Executive Director, Secular Student Alliance
Todd Stiefel, President, Stiefel Freethought Foundation
Fred Edwords, National Director, United Coalition of Reason
Is that really your claim? It’s just those 22 people making a statement about what they’re personally going to do?
brownian
Point taken, they simultaneously “pledged to use their best efforts…” AND “issued a united call for more civility”
Still, then we change your argument to: “Pledging to improve the TONE and SUBSTANCE of online discussions, and calling for more civility from everyone, while failing to take into consideration whole segments of the community, is not a step in the right direction. It’s standing still, both feet firmly planted in the ground.
I still don’t see where they “failed to take into consideration whole segments of the community”, or how this is ‘standing still’. I’ll grant that it’s not a huge step. It’s a small step, and an even smaller step _in the context of the issue of sexism alone_, but there is more than the issue of sexism currently causing problems in the community, and they started out saying that they’re addressing a different issue.
I love the smell of argument from ignorance in the morning!
You mean the part where they failed to contact ACS, Secular Census, Rebecca Watson, Ophelia Benson, Stephanie Zvan, or PZ?! You’re just being deliberately obtuse now, aren’t you!
Several of the above-mentioned bloggers have discussed at some length how encouraging a nice tone and insisting on what superficial, privileged people consider an elevated “level of discourse” has a way of entrenching existing power structures. Why don’t you go, read those, and then lurk a little until you’ve figured it out…
“I love the smell of argument from ignorance in the morning!”
It wasn’t an argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance is “We don’t know the cause of X, so Y!” I was rejecting the assertion for lack of evidence.
“You mean the part where they failed to contact ACS, Secular Census, Rebecca Watson, Ophelia Benson, Stephanie Zvan, or PZ?!”
They also didn’t contact a number of other people and organizations. It seemed pretty clear that they were going after organizations to sign the letter. What would be a critical mass? Who makes the list of necessary organizations? What’s the deadline for getting signatories? How big a blog following do you have to have? Matt Dillahunty wasn’t invited to sign, nor was Ayaan Hirsi Ali. This counts as not asking enough people?
Now I’m curious as to why all the women and minorities who signed did so, since you think the letter is so clearly a moral failure.
“encouraging a nice tone and insisting on what superficial, privileged people consider an elevated “level of discourse” has a way of entrenching existing power structures”
Once again, they encouraged people to moderate forums, trust but verify and other known best practices for public figures and online communities. As much as you seem to want to reduce the letter to a whine about tone, it’s not.
No, you just chose to remain ignorant of all those who discussed in detail that they were not considered, and how the lack of consideration affected them (hint: Rebecca is talking about it above).
This isn’t just a grab-bag for anybody. If you are talking about community harassment and you fail to include the perspective of those who have been harassed (either as consultants or signatories), you’re gonna fuck up. Big time. There’s a slogan that goes “nothing about us without us.” This is so elementary I’m really kind of dumbfounded this wasn’t inherently obvious to you.
Yeah, I’m sure your best friend who’s a minority signed it too! Look, douchenozzle, women and minorities are not a monolith. Some of them get to places where they can ignore the marginalization that others deal with (see also: Sheryl Sandberg and Bill Cosby and Sarah Palin and Clarence Thomas). Not all people who are in marginalized groups magically have access to some hivemind of social theory. Not everyone in every marginalized group has every experience. And, just having someone of a certain identity doesn’t mean it must be fine from the standpoint of all those that share that identity. Sheesh.
I have already said why all those things are flawed. Answer my objections or stop repeating them.
if the online skeptic community continues to reinforce a standard of discourse that prohibits ALL personal attacks, including sexist remarks and threats, then the incidence of such bad behavior will be reduced.
It is possible to say a lot of horrible, vile, sexist, racist, homophobic et al stuff without using swears or “personal attacks.” For instance, “Black people are inherently more criminal” is neither a personal attack, or a threat, but its a vile thing to say. So is “Women are just naturally less intelligent than men.” Do these statements belong in the public discourse? Should black people or women have to answer them, over and over again ad nauseum in order to maintain a ‘standard of discourse’?
Its ~almost~ like the problem isn’t how something is being said but what is being said. What WE are saying is that ‘threats’ and ‘slurs’ do not belong in the same category as ‘insults’ because the former are about the CONTENT while the latter is about the TONE of what is being said. And frankly, tone trolling has been to often used to silence the oppressed. Oppressed people are often angry, and impatient. We have a right to be. Because we not only have to deal with outright sexists or racists making “polite,” non-swear filled statements about *who we are as people,* but we also have to deal with (presumably) well-meaning people like yourself, criticizing the sharp way we interact with those bigots.
It is fucking frustrating to be lectured to by people who aren’t in the fight and don’t deal with this shit day in and day out. Instead of telling the people who are being harassed and oppressed to be nice and smile–why don’t you tell the bigots (however nicely they phrase their bbigotry) to stop being fucking bigots, hmmm?
Rats–the first lines is a quote from Andy Ewing. The comment form is stripping my HTML out…
“It is possible to say a lot of horrible, vile, sexist, racist, homophobic et al stuff without using swears or “personal attacks.””
I agree. The article I linked above explores some of phenomenon in the context of “benevolent sexism”.
“Do these statements belong in the public discourse? Should black people or women have to answer them, over and over again ad nauseum in order to maintain a ‘standard of discourse’?”
Should they? No. Just the other day I tried to explain to a very “non-vile” person that rape victims hold ZERO responsibility for being raped. They remained unconvinced, and they will undoubtedly repeat their despicable beliefs on some other forum.
“What WE are saying is that ‘threats’ and ‘slurs’ do not belong in the same category as ‘insults’ because the former are about the CONTENT while the latter is about the TONE of what is being said.”
I agree that former are more specifically about content, while the latter has an expanded meaning that includes slurs along with more generic insults like “idiot”. That said, in the context of the letter, they grouped these items in regard to a specific outcome:
From the letter: “Insults, slurs, expressions of hatred, and threats undermine our shared values of open and candid discussion because they move us away from an exchange of views supported with reasons.”
I think that their argument is sound, and the issue of insult vs slur doesn’t come into play given the point they were trying to make.
“And frankly, tone trolling has been to often used to silence the oppressed”
I agree 100%
“we also have to deal with (presumably) well-meaning people like yourself, criticizing the sharp way we interact with those bigots”
I criticize some people’s inability to interact civilly with NON-bigots. It’s like they get so jaded by dealing with the truly willfully ignorant, they can’t shift gears to “normal” dialogue, even for fellow feminists. It’s not often, but when I do publicly disagree with some portion of a feminist blog post, I am almost always accused of mansplaining, being willfully ignorant, being a bigot, a sexist, called all manner of insults, and more importantly, my reasons are ignored in favor of heaping insults on me. I see this happen to other people too, and yes, I can tell the difference between a bigot and a feminist who just happens to think differently.
“It is fucking frustrating to be lectured to by people who aren’t in the fight and don’t deal with this shit day in and day out.”
I see that 100%. My question is, am I *allowed* to disagree with someting you might say? If so, how shal I do that?
“Instead of telling the people who are being harassed and oppressed to be nice and smile–why don’t you tell the bigots (however nicely they phrase their bbigotry) to stop being fucking bigots, hmmm?”
Again, this is the kind of baseless assumption that just wastes time and halts discourse. You have no reason to think that I DON’T tell bigots to stop being bigots.
I’m interested in what works in terms of moving the community forward. I have to agree with you and LeftSidePositive – obdurate bigots with no hope of ‘salvation’ just have to be made so unwelcome that they leave. That said, EVERYONE has bad beliefs, and the kind of discourse that LeftSidePositive seems to enjoy is guaranteed to alienate anyone whose view differs. Vitriol and insults hurled at PEOPLE and not IDEAS or BELIEFS are guaranteed to put people on the defensive and make them much, much less likely to change their views. This isn’t just my opinion, or “tone trolling”, it’s about the CONTENT of our discourse: are we discussing ideas, or just reviling people? If you care about convincing more people to be feminists or secularists, you have to care deeply about the answer to that question.
LeftSidePositive seems to think that the “principle of charity” is just another way for The Man to keep you down. It’s not. It’s a practical approach to discourse that has been demonstrated OVER and OVER to produce better dialogue, which is the only way that we bring people to our side.
Thanks for taking up tons and tons of pixels explaining how you’re totally a great ally elsewhere…and continuing to be a mansplaining douche here.
Failing to address the difference between an insult and a slur is a moral failing. It is equating a purely stylistic issue with an issue of injustice. It is false equivalence. It robs people of the genuine voice to express their outrage. It is unacceptable.
While we’re on the subject of slurs, you’ve still failed to apologize for using one upthread.
So why the fuck are you repeatedly doing it here?!
Another example of your embarrassing ignorance: it’s not just the overtly bigoted that need calling out. Haven’t we mentioned a few times on this very thread that it’s not just overt bigotry, but it’s what people don’t realize that they’re doing?! It’s also smug, privilege-denying, focus-shifting mansplainers. {_} <-mirror
Dude, I wrote out and itemized for you ways you are being willfully ignorant. You haven’t addressed it. You even added another one above.
Dude, I provided you concrete examples of where you were mansplaining and being willfully ignorant. The fact that you act all confused and affronted when I took the time to show you where you were wrong and how you could learn from it shows that you’re…waaaaiiit fooor iiiiiit…willfully ignorant!!
Also, another point of your ignorance, which is getting pretty comical by this point: when you are criticized for sexist behavior, it’s not a matter of being “A bigot” or “A sexist”–it’s about BEHAVIOR that, whether you mean it to or not, and whether it’s out of character for you or not, feeds into social structures of bigotry and/or sexism. “A bigot,” “A sexist” or “A racist” are almost certain tells for someone who has no idea what ze is talking about from a social justice perspective. (But, please go on and whine about how it’s sooooo uuunfaaaaaiiiiiiiir that we call you ignorant!) And another thing for your martyr complex–no one called you “A bigot” OR “A sexist” on this thread, nor did we even so much as apply the labels bigoted or sexist to your behavior! I did a Ctrl-F to be sure, so stop whining.
No, actually, I comprehensively addressed the flaws in your reasons. You have ignored my posts and continued to repeat the same tired bullshit to others, ignoring that it’s already been answered. If you don’t agree with the answers, fine, but at least acknowledge and try to refute them!
Of course. You’re allowed to say the world is flat, too, but that doesn’t mean you won’t get called wrong when you’re wrong. And you’re not just disagreeing–you’re minimizing. You’re ignoring counter-arguments. You used a slur. You’re hyper-fixated on tone. You’re arguing from ignorance and ignoring what people directly affected by these issues are telling you.
Now you’re just making excuses not to change your views. This is tiresome, and no, we’re not buying it. Views are not an immutable part of yourself. You are in control of your intellectual honesty. The fact that you would rather whine about tone than engage in arguments says a great deal about your values. Moreover, you are the person who is not just promoting stupid ideas, but you are engaging in some bad behavior, and doing it pretty repetitively to the point that it’s pretty clear that it’s a character flaw. We’re allowed to point that out.
Thanks, privileged man, for arguing from assertion to flatly deny the ways I’ve been dismissed! That’s sooo helpful! Gee, I’m so sorry for all those times I called you a mansplainer! Let me hereby amend: you are a filthy, motherfucking mansplainer.
I suggest you read the Letter from Birmingham Jail on this regard. I suggest you read “Why Are You Atheists So Angry?” I suggest you learn about the history of ACT UP! I suggest you learn about the early Women’s Suffrage Movement. I suggest you consider your position as one with privilege in contrast to the lived experience of those who have spoken up and gotten results when we ruffled feathers. I suggest that getting some salty language involved makes pages of social theory a hell of a lot more colorful, and I further suggest you notice that some of the more freewheeling spaces are the most engaged and popular (’cause, y’know…nobody reads Pharyngula, and nobody’s written to PZ about how his blog was useful in their deconversion…and nobody has found cognitive dissonance compelling or unsettling…suuuuuuure!).
Whew, for a second I thought I might actually get to hear what Jenae Reese had to say. Thanks for taking care of that for me LeftSidePositive!
“Of course. You’re allowed to say the world is flat, too, but that doesn’t mean you won’t get called wrong when you’re wrong”
That wasn’t the point of the question – the point to ask if people who aren’t directly affected by X CAN ever have sound counter-arguments when talking to people who are directly affected, and if so, then how do they express those arguments without being told that they’re just “lecturing”?
“And you’re not just disagreeing–you’re minimizing. You’re ignoring counter-arguments. You used a slur. You’re hyper-fixated on tone. You’re arguing from ignorance and ignoring what people directly affected by these issues are telling you.”
Lets see, you’ve happily minimized my experience and arguments, you’ve ignored a number of my arguments, douchenozzle isn’t a slur I guess, nope, and believe it or not, I do value what people directly affected by these issues tell me. Not everyone directly affected by these issues feels the same way that you do. Similarly, you don’t have a trump card that says because you’re directly affected you’re always right about everything on the topic. Do you get the benefit of the doubt? Absolutely. Blank check? Nope.
“Dude, I provided you concrete examples of where you were mansplaining and being willfully ignorant”
Again, you provided arguments. They are far from ‘concrete examples of mansplaining’, because your arguments were flawed.
“The fact that you would rather whine about tone than engage in arguments says a great deal about your values”
The fact that you are incapable of differentiating between tone and content is incredible. For the record, I have read a lot of Greta Christina’s work, including the Angry Atheists piece. I have read Martin Luther King’s letter from a Birmingham Jail. For years I lived less than a block from the MLK memorial in Atlanta and I visited it frequently. I think YOU should re-read that letter. Why? Because that letter is powerful, where your arguments and rhetoric is weak and self-defeating. If you care about the future of the secular movement, or the future of the feminist movement, you must care about WHY that letter is powerful. You must care about the content. You must care about the form.
You have to ask yourself – “What do I care about more? Feeling justified in calling people assholes, dipshits, and douchenozzles? In minimizing their experiences and dismissing their character? or do I care about the future of my society?
The endgame for secularism, for feminism, for civil rights, is not and has never been the elimination of the “other”. It has ALWAYS been the *assimilation* of the other. How do we achieve that? Through discourse, and we KNOW from experience that personal attacks make for failed discourse. We KNOW that the kind of vitriol you enjoy spewing drives people away from both movements, without actually helping or defending anyone. There’s being strident, like Hitchens, and then there’s being an asshole. The difference is whether you’re addressing the belief and behavior or the person. Objecting to the former is tone trolling. Objecting to the latter is self-respect.
Jenae Reese is still perfectly capable of replying to your comment. I have not stolen her keyboard. She still has a reply button. What the fuck is this whine?!
Whether or not it is possible to have a sound counter-argument is not relevant to the fact that your counter-arguments have been shit. And, it’s generally a good idea to ask a question rather than make an assertion, if the issue at hand affects someone else directly and you think you have some brilliant insight–odds are they’ve thought of it already, and rejected it for a reason.
Do you even know what “minimize” means?! It doesn’t mean disagreeing. It doesn’t mean telling you where you’re wrong. It doesn’t mean pointing out ignorance. It means taking a big deal and twisting it to seem like something insignificant. It means ignoring axes of oppression that make something a big deal.
WHICH ONES? I’ve responded to everything I’ve seen so far.
Nope, it’s objectively not, fuckwad. No one has the identity of a douche. A douche is a harmful product that is marketed to women based on the cultural assumption that they are unclean but actually totally unnecessary for their health. It is therefore a fitting reference to someone who is irritating (specifically to women), thinks they’re essential, but is actually superfluous. Another thing you’re ignorant about, I suppose…
Actions speak louder than words, I’m afraid.
Then why don’t you try MAKING A COHERENT ARGUMENT, instead of just whining?! I might not always be right, but you’ve given no indication that I’m not right in this case.
Hey, mansplainer…care to pick an argument and say WHY it’s flawed? That’s how arguing generally works, you know…
WHAT?! What does this even mean? Please link to the comments you’ve made that you think contain content, and provide line numbers to where the content is.
And to whatever extent that you think a defense of the tone is content, I’ve already said why that is misguided, status-quo-reinforcing, and marginalizing (and boring).
Thanks for that assertion, dude. It was very educational.
Those are just assertions. Provide evidence or shut up. And by the way, Hitchens was lambasted for being an overly-aggressive “New Atheist” 2nd Horseman of the Apocalypse who was totally too strident and turning people away from atheism, too. Just FYI.
Fuck the tone! It’s the content we are arguing about!
Do you not think, andy ewing, that the people who have been engaged in the fight for a couple of years might, on balance, have more idea what this is about than someone who wandered in from the planet Zog but feels quite able to tell us that we are misunderstanding our own experience? Do you not think that the woman who wrote the OP, who is also one of those who was subjected to vile abuse, might understand both what the real problem is and how best to address it?
As more than one person has pointed out today, once these “leaders” have decided – go! leaders! – that women are fully paid-up members of the human race and entitled to equal treatment then certain arguments and certain actions are off the table but boisterous language is not one of them. Yet there is nothing on the tablets of stone which says these people and their organisations are going to address gender-based bias or threatening behaviour. There’s nothing which even says they are sorry they let this rip and/or sat back and laughed while real harm was done to real people. They seem perfectly content to let abusive behaviour continue provided that it is done in polite language.
We women and similarly enlightened people know from experience that what they have written does not fully address the problems experienced. And, being fully human, as they have themselves admitted, we get to call them on it. Just as we get to call you on your mansplaining. It’s what equality means and, yes, it might feel a little uncomfortable until you get used to it. Tough!
—-
Love ya, brownian!
“someone who wandered in from the planet Zog but feels quite able to tell us that we are misunderstanding our own experience”
Where exactly do you get off telling me who I am and what my experience is? I was around for elevatorgate, happily raised my voice in favor of codes of conduct, argued in favor of atheismplus, yadda yadda yadda, and on a day to day basis I correct ignorance of privilege, sexism in those around me. I have a lot of success, by and large, because I make a point of respecting PEOPLE when attacking ideas.
Where did I tell you what your experience was, or that you misunderstood it? Where did I call into question YOUR feminist credentials? I didn’t, because to do so on the basis of a post or two would be intellectually bankrupt, ignorant, and counter-productive.
” There’s nothing which even says they are sorry they let this rip and/or sat back and laughed while real harm was done to real people. They seem perfectly content to let abusive behaviour continue provided that it is done in polite language.”
Again, where do you get off telling every signatory on that list that they don’t give a shit about abusive behavior? How did you get from what they wrote to that conclusion?
“We women and similarly enlightened people know from experience that what they have written does not fully address the problems experienced”
I agree, my point is that I don’t see them claiming that the letter was an end-all-be-all solution to every problem that the secular community has. It addressed the problem of online secular discourse, with a nod to the issue most commonly at the center of terrible discourse.
Andy, I don’t care how good you think you are, or how good your past intentions have been, or even how nice you are when sexism is blatant enough for even you to see it. The issue now is that you are being a dense, tone-trolling mansplaining shithead. We can identify fundamental flaws in your “feminism” because you are saying things that no one with a passing knowledge of how privilege works or how people are marginalized could possibly spout. We’re not impugning your deep special character or anything, but we can call into question your feminist credentials because you’re saying stuff that’s just plain stupidly ignorant. Just like I can question someone’s self-proclaimed evolutionary biologist credentials if they were to say “But why are there still monkeys?” Yes, it only takes a couple blog posts to show you have a shoddy foundation for your thinking. “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt…” and all that.
By the way, dumbshit, it’s not about whether or not the signatories CONSCIOUSLY don’t give a shit about abusive behavior. It’s that they don’t seem to care that what they care about more–the fucking tone!–will have very bad consequences in terms of enabling abusive behavior. Again, intent is not magic. If you actually had a shred of the feminist credentials you claim you would have heard of this by now. Not to mention, I already told you upthread, so you really have no excuse other than being a willfully ignorant tone-trolling blowhard.
I have already told you that focusing on the problem of “online discourse” is generally a shitty idea, and none of their business. To do so instead of addressing the harassment of women is MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE. You have not answered this issue. You have just kept repeating your gradeschool-level thought that hyperventilating about the tone of other people’s online spaces is in any way worthwhile or valid (for the record, even I don’t think the signatories are as callous as you seem to be considering them. I think they genuinely think their efforts will stop harassment, and they’re simply wrong about the social dynamics leading to harassment). Repeating things when others have offered arguments against them is trolling, so cut it out.
By the way, upthread you used “bitch,” a gendered slur, in your comment above. You should apologize for that immediately (and stop fucking whining that we point out your painfully obvious ignorance).
You’re right, I did say “bitch”, and I should know better, and I should have said “complain”. I apologize.
“To do so instead of addressing the harassment of women is MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE”
You seem far more comfortable than me to assume knowledge of others’ circumstances and motivations. There are a lot of things that need doing, and some are able to be done when others aren’t. I don’t feel bad about helping a friend move instead of driving someone to the hospital – IF the former is manageable and the latter, for whatever reason, isn’t feasible at the time.
It seems that you don’t agree, but I actually think that improving online communities is very important. As I said before, I get tired of being labeled a bigot or a misogynist every goddamn time I have a difference of opinion, and NO, I’m not always wrong. I’ve had the lovely satisfaction of being lambasted by people like you before, only to have some “respected” feminists repeat my objections: Magically these same objections suddenly become valid.
The point being, that needlessly engaging in personal attacks instead of addressing the arguments and beliefs isn’t just a matter of “tone”, it’s a matter of content, and it’s a harm that our community doesn’t need.
Now, is the issue of secular discourse AS important as stopping harrassment? No. But from where I sit it IS serious, and this letter addresses the former directly and the latter indireclty. This was a thing that for whatever reasons could be done and was. To call writing this letter instead of addressing sexism and harassment morally reprehensible seems arrogant and naive.
“Repeating things when others have offered arguments against them is trolling, so cut it out.”
Just because you’ve offered an argument, doesn’t mean that it was a sound argument.
“it’s not about whether or not the signatories CONSCIOUSLY don’t give a shit about abusive behavior.”
Agreed, intent is not magic.
“It’s that they don’t seem to care that what they care about more–the fucking tone!–will have very bad consequences in terms of enabling abusive behavior”
Again, if they had only addressed TONE, I’d agree. There was a lot more there than just tone.
“Not to mention, I already told you upthread, so you really have no excuse other than being a willfully ignorant tone-trolling blowhard.”
I dont’ know why you think that your words are some kind of magic that once read commit other people to either agreeing with you, or beiong labeled “willfully ignorant”. Your arrogance is frankly astounding.
I see your kind of bullying a lot among people on the ‘front lines’ of feminism. You think that personal insults are a sign of strength, and TELLING people what to read or what to think is effective rhetoric. You don’t grant me ANY authority to speak on the subject at hand. Given that, why do you expect me to grant you that respect? I don’t care how many swear words you use, but the less respect you show for me as a person, the less I’m inclined to take you or your arguments seriously. I’m pretty sure that most people have the same response.
Again, it’s not about tone, call sexism “fucking dumbass sexism”, use whatever language you like when describing ideas or beliefs, but when you use the ‘retorical device’ of asking a barrage of loaded questions that you’ve already assumed the (wrong) answer to, instead of presenting an argument, you demonstrate a complete lack of respect for the people you’re talking to, and your post doesn’t merit a response.
Took you long enough!
LISTEN UP, DUMBSHIT: This is not about motivations. I’ve told you this before. Repeatedly. Motivations don’t count for shit. Intent is not magic. I’m not assuming knowledge of others’ circumstances and motivations–I am pointing out that their EFFECTS are unacceptable. I don’t know why the fuck this is so hard for you to grasp.
And by the way, what possible “circumstances” could one be in that would give one the right or moral authority or need or indeed ANY validity to quibble about the politeness of someone else’s blog?!
No, idiot, my point is that politeness is utterly orthogonal to the issue of improving online communities. Having dumbshits like you think before you post would improve online communities.
1) Stop whining. 2) I dealt with this in my last post–learn to grasp the difference between a criticism of yourself and your behavior, and learn to grasp the difference between criticism of your opinion and criticism of your totally douchey, privilege-blind derailing techniques.
Links, please…
Who says it’s needless? Why do you get to decide that? I already told you it’s needed to shake you out of your complacency, and to protest your style-over-substance trolling.
YOU ARE THE FUCKING DOUCHE who has been ignoring my arguments to focus on tone. You are the douche who has ignored the lists I have made you of how and why you’ve been ignorant. You are the asshole who has been ignoring content and repeating the same bullshit.
If you must masturbate, please do it in private, wether verbally or not.
Have you failed to notice that we are opposed to the aim itself, not just the focus on it? Just saying something is possible to accomplish is not an argument in its favor when we are opposed to the thing itself.
Where’s my mansplainer’s bingo card? Did you notice that I wrote at great length in several posts about WHY it was morally reprehensible? Would you like to actually present an argument instead of just arguing from assertion?
If that was the case, you could refute it. The fact that you choose to repeat yourself rather than address the issue in progress strongly implies you’re not up for taking on the argument on its merits.
Aw, thanks for repeating the buzzphrase and then failing to see how it applies throughout this thread!
I’ve already dealt with this upthread. Provide a counter argument or stop repeating it.
No, you fucking shithead–it means you need to ANSWER THE ARGUMENT. This is not fucking difficult. If you disagree, say WHY. Then I say why I disagree with you. This is how this works. Just repeating the thing I already have an answer for is not getting anyone anywhere (and it’s trollish and a fucking waste of time!).
Being called out on your insensitive, misguided, intellectually dishonest behavior is not “bullying,” so cut that self-serving appropriating crap out right the fuck now.
I’m not giving you authority to speak about my life? I’m not giving you authority to speak about how my voice has been marginalized? Funny that!
And you lost your authority with all your repeated fuck-ups, mansplaining, and lack of substantive arguments. Authority needs to be earned, and you failed to earn it.
I’m interested in this contention that asking rhetorical questions is not an argument. Go tell it to Socrates.
Moreover, the argument (since you seem to be too dense to grasp it) was, in declarative statements, this time: the term “personal attack” is often used to deflect substantive criticism from people’s harmful behavior, since privileged people conflate the distress they feel at being corrected with being marginalized. “Personal attack” is poorly defined and can just as easily protect the privileged as the oppressed, since it focuses on things being “personal” and not the nature and content of the statements. Was that so hard? (<-see, rhetorical question!) Bonus exposition: if you mean slurs, then say slurs. But, in the context of "let's all get together and be charitable and pick up the phone," the use of "personal attack" is unacceptably vague.
rlindsay Ron Lindsay, you say that reproductive rights have long been a core issue for CFI. I have seen your work on the contraception mandate, but has CFI addressed any of the attacks against abortion access in the states? If you have documentation of action alerts, lobbying, or similar activity on those bills I will update the American Secular Census’s post.
When has correcting tone ever solved anything? Assholes just dog-whistle, using nicer language to express the same malicious ideas.
Let us not forget Lee Atwater:
Yeah, that “did away with the racial problem. Tone policing just leads to more convoluted versions of assholery.