From here*:
I love Jen McCreight–I’m a regular reader of her blog and a follower of hers on Twitter. As far as atheism/skepticism goes, I think she is generally spot on and very clever. Truly, I am a fan. But she has what I call the “feminist chip” on her shoulder, big time. I don’t doubt her contentions (or those of her guest posters) about sexism in the atheist community and elsewhere. The site “fatuglyorslutty.com” shows how rampant and awful it is in the online gaming community. So, I sympathize, and yes, men need to behave much better. I believe that when people like Ms. McCreight & her guest posters get into a twist over silly, irrelevant linguistic semantics of language (and that’s how this incident sounds to me after reading both accounts), that kind of ridiculous, butterfly-wings sensitivity detracts from more serious and legitimate concerns and problems that women face. It makes men like me take them less seriously on this issue, and surely that is the last thing that they want.
tl;dr I love Jen when she makes fun of religion, but I hate it when she makes ME uncomfortable!
If I wanted to lower my blood pressure, I would stick to criticizing religion. Circle jerks are much more pleasant. At least all the trolls that come out whenever I dare to whisper “sexism” or “feminism” really just prove my point – even in posts I don’t write!
As for the guest post itself, I’m not commenting on it further until I get to watch the talk in question.
*That post is so full of fail it makes my head spin. Having a vagina doesn’t automatically make you immune from being sexist, and disregarding others opinions makes you part of the problem. If you were the lone woman on the panel, no wonder it went so fucking poorly.
I think what you’ve pointed out here is a real problem for the atheist community, and I would have hoped that we were collectively a bit more enlightened. Reading your posts is what motivated me to spill a few pixels myself on the matter, at the risk of self-promoting. Anyway, thanks for making a positive step towards awareness of the problem, and hence towards solving it.
So has the White Knighting of you or the woman who was on the panel started yet?
I am very glad not to be a man “like him”.
You hysterical ladies! As a Rational Man let me tell you what the true issues facing women are.Bonus points for “linguistic semantics of language”.
lol.. Calling a female an asshole doesn’t seem very feminist of you.
Calling someone an asshole is perfectly feminist – both men and women have them, and boy can both of them act like them sometimes.
That’s an odd thing to say. Are not Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter as well-described by “asshole” as Bill O’ Riley and Glenn Beck? What about Lila Rose? It would be much more sexist, I think, to imply that no woman could ever be as big an asshole as a man.
I have to say I find your feminist perspectives very excellent. Some perspectives I come across in the feminist community I have problems with (always seem to be anti science slanted) but you seem to get just as annoyed over those as me. You are doing a great job and I hope the sexist assholes don’t get to you! If I were in your shoes they probably would have gotten to me a long time ago already!
Jen: you should have talked to more people that were at the seram before defaming a whole group of people. They were also referring to men as males. The issue… seeing as how you’ve temporarily removed the paragraph assassinating sean faircloths character… is with the “female” statement… which as I said before… is trivial compared to the conversation they were having.
The people who are really defaming SERAM are the ones leaving comments on the previous post using tired sexist tropes. No sense of humor? Your opinion doesn’t matter because it wasn’t the popular one? Shut up, you’re over reacting?If that’s how you respond to concerns, I want nothing to do with the SERAM people.
Context is (almost) everything. Even if the men were called “males,” there’s a cultural context of dehumanization and delegitimization that’s missing for men. If women are only ever called “females” in a speech, and if that speech otherwise plays into that harmful cultural context of relentless condescension, then, yes, that’s a problem even if the men are given similar linguistic attention.As for whether it’s trivial or not, that’s hard for me to address as I wasn’t there either. What I can speak to, however, is the “death by a thousand papercuts” effect, where things that by all rights should be trivial end up mattering a lot due to juxtaposition with other subtle and not-so-subtle ways of degrading women. It’s a fallacy to dismiss concerns as trivial without recognizing the place they occupy in a broader cultural context; moreover, this fallacy does a lot of harm to real human beings trying to raise awareness about problems in their communities.
If I had a cookie for every time someone played the “But X is so trivial/silly/insignificant, should you be focusing on/worried about/grateful that Y doesn’t happen here in the U.S” game, I would have succumbed to Type II Diabetes long ago, let alone the boiling seethe my blood pressure cooks up with each comment like that. If you think Y is so important, blog about it yourself. Don’t get caught up telling other people what they can and cannot write about based on your oh-so-special expectations of importance.
Okay. I must speak up here. I am not feminist. I have never been a feminist. I tend to be very careful about applying labels, especially to myself, and that’s not one I feel the need for. In a way, it’s semantics, because I can get behind a lot of things that feminism often gets behind – but there are also a lot of things that get done in the name of feminism that make me uncomfortable and/or angry (porn wars, anyone?), and since I don’t much care for labels in the first place, I end up choosing not to apply the feminism label to myself. Instead I just say I’m for equal rights and decent treatment for human beings in general, and that covers a whole lot of isms.I go to an ultra-liberal, radically left wing college, and I’ve learned a lot about the nastiness of extremism here – bigotry and cruelty and counter-productivity and divisiveness practiced by liberals. The people I’m supposed to be on the same side as! The brand of feminism generally practiced here is often quite offensive – it’s limiting and sexist and man-hating and even woman-hating. One of my very sweet (and very feminist!) housemates was once screamed at by a stranger, a fellow student, for “upholding the patriarchy” because she was wearing a dress.I say all this to provide context. I am not a feminist, and while I often agree with feminist principles, I never simply accept them, and I am in fact inherently suspicious of isms in general, and feminism is particular. But Jen, I read every single one of your posts, and follow you on Facebook, and investigate the blogs you link to, and absolutely love almost all of what you have to say.There are plenty of chip-on-the-shoulder type feminists out there. I’ve known many of them. I can’t stand them and can be counted on to rage about them at length. You are simply not one of them. Not even a little bit! You’re reasonable and well-reasoned and your brand of feminism is the kind that’s more like peopleism – it’s not just about women, it’s about reducing inequality and unfairness between the sexes, and being aware of the pitfalls and tangles along the way.Seriously, if I don’t perceive a feminist as being of the chip-on-shoulder variety, they’re just….not. I’m a canary in a mine shaft for this, really I am. In fact, you deserve a lot of credit for my increased tolerance of feminism – I see the nastiest variety of it around me every day, so it can be a little overwhelming – along with Holly of The Pervocracy, and Greta Christina, both of whom I discovered through your blog.So, from a slightly peculiar perspective, that’s my take on the matter, and my little thank you. In conclusion: I have all sympathy with the women of the last post, including the woman they wrote about, who stood up and said something reasonable, and felt the need to leave the room. Language and “semantics” are important things. They don’t exist in a vacuum, and they were clearly not the only problem with that situation. It’s very unfortunate that there’s so much divisiveness and defensiveness coming along as a result – it’s completely unreasonable.
Unfortunately for people who profess to feminism but don’t like our outspokenness, sexism doesn’t go away when we ignore it any more than any other problem. Regardless of what naysayers might think, fixing sexist attitudes requires addressing the little things as well as the huge looming ones. In fact, sometimes addressing the little problems makes the big ones easier to get rid of.I love that Jen takes on these issues here, and honestly, it is a big part of the reason I read this blog.
Okay, what the person actually said? Something you could definitely disagree with and successfully argue against.But equating “While I agree with most aspects, I think quibbling over terminology trivialises feminism” with “Stop making me uncomfortable!” is flat-out ridiculous. It’s not at all what he was saying, and claiming it was just makes you look all hysterical and chip-on-the-shoulder – and I know that you aren’t.As has been said in the comments, the guy isn’t right, and it would have been easy to point out why. So why the non sequitur?
I’m still waiting for the day where someone says “This is a minor problem that hinders progress on the real problems™” and actually identifies the major problems and how he or she wants to tackle them. And that’s even beyond the fallacy that we can only work on one aspect of a problem at once, and it HAS to be the most important one.
That’s not at all what she said, you’re proving her point, and you took what she said and changed it to make it more inflammatory. Congrats on failing. I need to go facepalm now.P.S. In case it wasn’t apparent. I agree with her assessment of you.
Feminism != Female ChauvinismFor non programmers, != means ‘not equal to’/’not equivalent to’
But the term “female” doesn’t have the same kind of negative connentation that, for example, the N word has. If you went out on the street and refered to a random woman as a female, 99% of them wouldn’t mind. Yes, we should consider the feelings of others, but how small of a group can they be before it becomes excessive. Anything you do, you can find at least on person in the world who is offended by it. And while we should care about the feelings of others, they should care about ours as well. For example, one speech that one of my family members went to had a very old man in it who refered to black people as “negros”. Now, he should learn not to say that, but we should learn that he meant no harm by it and that it was just the polite term to use 60 years ago. We should be able to come to a compromise on language.
Good point
The thing is, even though of course I do not agree with the guy who commented, I do understand where he is coming from. Naturally it looks a bit silly when during a discussion about how to treat women better, a woman complains about semantics. Wasn’t feminism about giving women equal rights? I am doing that, aren’t I? Why shoot the person who is trying to help you? It is understandable that someone would think the woman is overreacting.But that is exactly the problem here, men not wanting to listen to women’s input. She says it makes her uncomfortable, then that is a valid point. The article mentioned going in depth on the question, which would have been good, but a simple poll would also have been a good response. “Who is uncomfortable with us talking about females instead of women?” It was not that big a deal that they used a wrong word (that’s just ignorance, and ignorance can be cured easily), it is how they dealt with it that is so important. Instead of acknowledging they were possibly part of the problem, they found it more important to defend themselves. “This community is sexist, but I’m not!”There are three steps to getting rid of sexism. First we must acknowledge that we are all sexist, to a smaller or larger extent (it seems the panel had not accepted this yet). Second, we can discuss a particular behaviour being sexist or not. Finally, we can discuss whether that behaviour should change or not. That is, is it harmful enough to warrant a change. Since the way we talk about people influences the way we think about them, speaking more respectfully is a key step in fighting sexism.
Here’s a lovely example of the wonderful, tolerant atheist community:http://www.facebook.com/permal…Discussion, completely non-religious, posted on the wall of one of the hosts of ‘The Atheist Experience.’ Male poster has Darwin and Hitchens, etc as his likes. What a wonderful example of our societies values.
And even more, and more importantly, that there is a fast component to sexism, racial bias, any kind of bias that we CANNOT get rid of no matter how hard we try.
I have to say, I only became aware of male privilege and bias by reading this blog. It seems so obvious now that I’ve been reading awhile, but it sucks that the community isn’t up to speed. I guess they should read your blog more. I feel like I’m much more sensitive to these issues than I was in the pre-Boobquake era.
On your previous post, I read all of the comments. One person did use the word ‘cunt.’ With the exception of that one jackass, I did not notice anyone resort to “using tired sexist tropes.” Youv’e had more than one commenter who actually attended the event call Sharon and Lyz liars. If they did lie, that is defamation.Perhaps you do have a chip on your shoulder that you need to deal with. I recommend that you be skeptical and rational and stop being so emotional. Of course, I worry that someone might call me sexist for saying such a thing, but those who would do so forget that all people, male and female, have trouble seperating emotion from reason.
I can’t face 278 comments on the other post, but I read the guest commenter’s viewpoint. I don’t have an opinion per se on this talk, since I wasn’t there. I have been reading atheist blogs (including this one before boobquake-internet cred, ha!) but haven’t participated much in activities or groups, and definitely not conferences. I have no idea personally if sexism exists specifically in this community. Ironically, I have occasionally wanted to post here and say that Jen isn’t feminist enough, that she accommodates sexists sometimes. (I haven’t done so…it’s not my blog).What I will say which I believe hasn’t been mentioned: Sexism in the Atheist community is overcome-able. I grew up in a church that isn’t about to change its ways. It’s the biggest part of the reason I left. I have discovered a less-sexist culture in Seattle, where I moved 6 years ago, and along with that, a much less-religious society. Even if it is completely correlation, with no causation, it gives me hope. The difference is: religious folk are stuck in their beliefs, and as much a struggle as it is to encourage people to see their privilege, atheists are still willing to change an ingrained viewpoint. The fact that this struggle exists kind of inspires me to join in more. I wasn’t able to make a lick of difference in my old church, but here….just by showing up, by existing without tolerating silliness, or by boldly speaking up….I might have an effect.
I’m finding this discussion very interesting. Most of the people who are commenting weren’t there and didn’t experience the incident firsthand–nearly all of us are in the position of trying to make sense of it from the reports of people who were there. (Unfortunately, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.) What I am most bothered by is the outright arguing over what was said and what was meant by it and whether or not anyone should or should not have been offended. What is indisputable is that three women felt uncomfortable by the tone of the conference. It is highly improbable that they were the only people who felt uncomfortable–it is possible, of course, but statistically unlikely. The important questions are: 1) Were these three women in the majority or the minority? 2) If they were in the minority, how large or small a minority was it?Women are constantly subjected to casual misogyny and male privilege. We all have different degrees of sensitivity or insensitivity to it. Instead of arguing about whether or not a particular incident was misconstrued, it would be more helpful to explore *why* the incident or atmosphere might have felt uncomfortable to a particular segment of the group. An honest, open dialog about the situation may prove to be extremely instructive both for those who felt uncomfortable and for those who thought nothing of it.The first step in correcting a problem is identifying exactly what the problem is. When both sides become so entrenched that they are right, exploring the nature of the issue gets completely swept aside. This whole situation is highly subjective and there is a vast range of possible responses to it and no one has a claim to the “right” interpretation.
You have to expect that some of the people coming to your blog as atheists are going to feel uncomfortable with your feminism, because you can’t expect everyone to agree with you on every issue. But this is a good thing! What’s the use constantly preaching to people who agree with you? Ruffle feathers! Change minds! Improve the world!As for this particular issue. I don’t know. I wasn’t there. I agree with your pro-science feminism, and I love your blog. I look forward to your take once you watch the video.
just asking… is feminist a derivative of female or woman?
No, of course “female” isn’t comparable to “nigger.” No one that I saw claimed that it is. And no, in many contexts, the word “female” is perfectly fine. What I was getting at, and what I suspect that the authors of the original post were getting at, is that the repeated and exclusive use of the word fits into a cultural context of dehumanization. The word “female” makes no affirmation of or association with the subject’s humanity, and thus can be used as an element of dehumanization, even if the word is not inherently such.To address your other point, of course we should respect the feelings of others, including those who might use sexist language. That respect, however, cannot be allowed to act as endorsement of or a complicit attitude towards that sexist language. As has been said a lot in feminist circles as of late, “we can walk and chew gum at the same time.” There is nothing incompatible about respecting one’s feelings, understanding where their sexism draws from and yet condemning such sexism and working to change it in the broader community. Indeed, there are quite a few people that I admire in many ways except for their attitudes toward women.
I went to the linked article, and here’s a quote from the author. I don’t know if it’s representative of the discussion at the conference, but it does point in that direction. I’ve included my comment on that post.”whether or not it runs them off because there’s obviously not nearly as many females as men in this movement.”See, I normally don’t have a problem with being called female- it is an accurate description of my sex. However, when in the same statement you use “men,” a specifically human term, and “females,” a generic term that can be used for half of all animals that use sexual reproduction, I start raising an eyebrow. Is there a reason why you used a human term for one sex category and a generic term for the other? It sounds a bit like you’re trying to make a point about which group is more human. If you want to use scientific terms for sexual categories, use female and male. If you want to talk about human gender issues, use men and women. Don’t mix the categories, it makes you sound sexist even if that’s not your intention.
http://www.etymonline.com/inde…However, I fail to see how the etymology of terms that have been in use for well over 100 years are relevant to the discussion of current usage and connotations.
I’m not sure why people couldn’t simply admit that mistakes were made and then move on, instead of closing ranks and going on the defensive.I wasn’t there so there is a limit to what I can comment on, but take the “weaker sex” comment. The guy who said it clearly meant it as a joke, but it wasn’t a very good one, and it was really not the appropriate time for a joke. As skeptics we should not be in the habit of reacting to any criticism as if the person who is criticizing us must be an idiot. Yet this seems to be the way a lot of the people defending this panel seem to be behaving.
Being told your problem isn’t a problem because hardly anyone saw it as such is, frankly, a problem, and it’s in a few places on that post’s comment thread. It’s certainly a trope, but I’m not sure it’s a sexist one. It gets used in plenty of power/privilege situations, even by the members of the same group as the complainant. I’d only be guessing if I were to try to figure out a reason for that. I can tell you though, that it’s not helpful when, as a disabled person, I complain of a problem, and someone else who’s disabled say “well, I’m disabled, and I don’t see the problem”. I think this is (part of) what Jen’s talking about.
So I wasnt at this event, and I havent seen any transcripts or videos of any kinds, but Im sorry to say that I have to agree that the use of the word “female” is hardly something to create controversy over. Maybe if a poll revealed that enough women are made uncomfortable with that word it should be changed – but damn – if this is one of the major problems women can come up about an atheist meeting with then we have already come a long way as a movement. The other issue that bothers Jen about this meeting is in her previous post: apparently, women are made uncomfortable when they go to a social gathering and too many guys hit on them. I wonder what kind of atmosphere these women encounter when they go to a bar on a Saturday night. I don’t know about the rest of the men here, but I certainly wouldn’t mind 20 women my mothers age blatantly staring at me. I think its stupid to try to deny the role of basic biology here, and that the sexes, are, in fact, different. Its absurd to claim that men aren’t constantly pursuing sex, because most of them are. This is sort of behavior is extremely hard to police, if not impossible, because there will always be a few guys who will hit on you or ask you for your number. Short of abolishing sexuality, this will not change. This comment of mine might be unpopular among some of the readership here. But believe it or not, Im on the side of women’s rights on every important issue (and yes, there are far more important things going on right now that women are facing). When the new Republican leadership in congress tries to redefine rape, or limit access to abortions, or repeal laws mandating that women get equal pay, I am just as outraged as anyone here. Why don’t we bring a greater focus on how a society with a patriarchal religion justifies these kinds of actions instead of worrying about ridiculous semantics issues or men trying to pursue sex.
The quote is of an anonymous commenter on that blog post…
Small point… feminism isn’t (just) about giving women equal rights. It’s also about equal opportunities (whether the barriers are legal, organisational, social, whatever), equal humanity, equal treatment, equal value. It goes way beyond rights.
Well, we (arguably) can’t get rid of it now, but we can try, do as much as we can, and we can eventually get rid of it in future generations.
Not so. If one person sees something as a problem that nobody else does, is it really a problem, or just one person being overly sensitive?Really now. A complaint about the word “female?” If we were to be so careful not to offend any one person with a seemingly innocuous word or phrase, then nothing would get said. Somebody is ready to be offended.The entire convention was offensive to thousands of Christians. Should the event not have been held?
I wasn’t there, obviously, so I’m commenting on the commentary more than anything else here. Or I’m commenting on general principles.Not everything has to be a confrontation. People can disagree without arguing. It may be that the original guest post was overboard, inaccurate, or in whatever degree unjustified. Doesn’t, fundamentally, matter.Every time someone perceives sexism (or anything else of the ilk), there’s some reason for it. Most likely the reason is a combination of the individual’s prior experience, their mental state, and, yes, the actual occurrence that made them react. I doubt that the final element of that is ever completely absent. Doesn’t mean it’s a big thing, but having it dismissed is close to dismissing the value of that person’s feelings.Let’s not carry on the other thread here, though… let’s consider this reaction. Someone stated that they find a lot of value in Jen’s opinions on scepticism, atheism, religion, etc, but not in her views on sexism, gender politics, etc. That’s a perfectly reasonable view. However, they also portrayed those views as ridiculous in and of themselves, which isn’t reasonable. I don’t hold Jen beyond criticism, nor do I think we should all automatically be nice to her because this is her blog – and I’d hope that she’d agree with that. However, when someone’s being unfair, it’s fair to point that out, and I reckon that people do that around here whoever is involved.Finally, looking at the commenter’s final point, mentioning an issue that’s “minor” compared to some nebulous issues isn’t inappropriate or fluffy or whatever; firstly, one might be in a situation where sex trafficking, access to abortions, etc, aren’t immediately relevant; the experience of those present is always relevant. Secondly, the existence of more profound and wide-reaching problems doesn’t make the ‘little’ problems go away. I use a rollator, and I feel there’s something wrong with disability provision when suitable provisions are made for people with wheelchairs, but not people using anything short of a wheelchair; the fact that there are still places with no disability provision at all doesn’t make it any less of a problem.
cgranade: you are the awesome.
Firstly: because a problem is perceived by a small minority, it isn’t a problem? Do I really have drag up the examples of how ridiculous that is?Regarding the Christians… if you’d been running an event that was intending to be welcoming and friendly to Christians, I imagine it would have been run differently. And even to promote atheist-theist dialogue would, I imagine, look different to an event just aimed at atheists. Regarding the word female, other people have posted explanations as to why it’s a problem in certain contexts. There’s no point me doing so as well. I will say, though, that my problem (not with the event, I can’t comment on that except as speculation – with a lot of the reaction here) is the apparent mockery of the person who had that problem.
So didn’t answer my main points, which I’ll repeat.If we were to be so careful not to offend any one person with a seemingly innocuous word or phrase, then nothing would get said. Somebody is ready to be offended.My problem is Jen’s refusal to own up to an inaccurate, and perhaps libelous, blog post. Instead, she is ready to label anyone who disagrees with her as sexist. She has stopped being rational.
For those who get it, you should read this. For those who don’t get it, you should really, really read this.http://shakespearessister.blog…This is the post that got the ball rolling for me. Since I read this, I have taken a strong interest in feminism. I’ve got my male privilege, sometimes conscious of it, but probably more often not, and it’s thanks to the Jen McCreights, Melissa McEwans, Harriett Js, kirbybitses, and countless other strong feminist writers who are provoking change and slowly emptying the sea of sexist shit one teaspoon at a time.Rock the fuck on, Jen. Keep calling these douchebags out and don’t be silenced. I’ll be here, I’ll be reading, and I’ll be supporting.(Edited to fix misspelling of Jen’s surname. Sorry Jen!)
I never said you should be careful never to offend anyone; I’m suggesting that any time someone is offended, particularly someone you’re trying to be welcoming to, it is only appropriate to take their problem seriously, and even if you find there to be no problem not to be mocking or dismissive.Regarding Jen’s reactions, I’ve not seen her attack or get defensive in reaction to criticism of the piece – it’s been criticisms of her. Some of us ‘fans’, though, were perhaps to quick to defend. The sensible thing for any of us to do is see the recording, and listen to everyone’s impressions. Factual inaccuracies are a problem, of course, but even if the view of the authors of the post is a minority one, they are entitled to it, and to voice it.
Thank you for the kind words!
Dude, explaining the joke ruins it.
It wasn’t a joke until he explained it.
Honestly, I’m shocked by your reaction. When I first read the title of this entry, I thought it was sincere, not sarcastic. This guy is making an articulate contribution to the discourse about feminism, and he’s being excluded. Isn’t this exactly the sort of thing we’re trying to prevent? There’s a difference between establishing discourse that treats women fairly, and creating a discourse that discounts the opinions of men. Frankly, if something is stated in an adult way, and doesn’t involve any direct insults or mudslinging, I think it deserves a fair retort. I like this blog generally, but your overreaction is (unfortunately) helping prove his point.
I forgot my second point: If you truly believe that men with these types of opinions need re-educating, then don’t scare them away with insults. He’s making a sincere attempt to take part in the conversation, so let him. It is only through your fair treatment in return that he’ll learn.
I love Jen McCreight–I’m a daily reader of her blog. As far as atheism/skepticism goes, I think she is generally spot on and very clever. Truly, I am a fan.I regularly repost her blog on Facebook to my friends.
With regard to men making hitting on women and excusing themselves by referring to biology, one does not to be a feminist, or even a woman, to take offense. Even putting aside issues of respect and equality, some of the male behavior I see described here is simply ill-mannered, boorish, and stupid.
Er, uh … please delete “making” & insert “have” after “does not” in that first sentence. Duh.
I don’t know why people go to bars. When they go to a conference, however, I expect them to be there for the conference. Courtship can wait for a more suitable venue.
I’d have a chip on my shoulder too if I didn’t have equal pay, equal rights, or equal cultural representation. A new study of doctors found that women make 16% less than men. It is still very popular too count women’s health as a field outside of regular medicine. And how many Members of Congress / Governors / Judges / CEO’s / TV Hosts / etc. are women. I take the chip-on-your-shoulder accusation as a matter of pride, that I care about the world in way that my accuser does not. I still consider it a bit over the top and ridiculous, as much as accusations of being a militant atheist or having a vendetta against christians or being angry at god. A simple modification may clarify: micro-chip-on-your-shoulder, nerf militant atheist, ink vendetta against christians, care-bear angry at god.
I disagree. The smart man knows that any venue is a suitable courtship venue. A bar. A yoga class. A grocery store. In line at Starbucks. And even an atheist conference. Why not? In fact – this is a better venue then many of the other ones, since you are more likely to meet a woman who has similar values than you do. The argument that courtship should be restricted to a certain time and place is absurd. Of course, there are those women that dont like to be hit on at starbucks – but those arent the ones I am compatible with anyway :)
In fact American society dehumanizes men far more often than it does women. Your comment above is an example of that. You are basically saying that even if men do receive the exact same alleged ill treatment (pretending for the sake of argument that use of “male” or “female” is ill treatment), then the ill treatment of men just doesn’t count. When you say men don’t count, you dehumanize men. It is very common in our society.
The criticism of feminism is that feminists are sexist. Feminists do not support equality, but instead work to create more of it.That and not your “outspokenness” is the problem people have with feminism.The reason feminists concentrate on “little things” is that they have no actual issues. They have to work hard to create the impression of a society turned against women whereas our society in fact favours women over men. A men’s rights advocate would not have to make up trivial crap to pretend to take offense at. There are real issues involved. Issues like women far more likely to go to college. Issues like women living years longer and having far more medical attention. Issues like the poorest people in the country being men. Issues like violence where men are the victims more than women, yet always women get the protection. When you have real issues you don’t talk about trivia all the time.Perhaps one reason men do not point out the sexism against them much is because they realise they are pretty luck to be in America and not starving in Africa? Who complains more? The powerful or the powerless? A billionaire in a 5 star hotel and a homeless person sleeping under a bridge — who complains about the noise of traffic more? In the same way you only ever hear women complaining about sexism because women have power in our society.
I have heard the word “female” used as an insult many a time. It’s preceded by a pause, and there is heavy emphasis on the first syllable. If that was common in the culture in which the one who objected was raised, her offense is understandable.
Women are paid the same as men if they do the same work. Feminists have been lying about this for forty years but if you look into the facts it is not hard to debunk. Do remember that women account for 80% of consumer spending. Spending money is nicer than earning it.Now a real problem is that women are 40-50% more likely to go to college than men are. There is real sexism out there and it is against men.
It takes one hell of a perverse reading of my comment to get that outof it. What I said is that absent the broader cultural context ofdehumanization, use of the words “male” and “female” shouldn’t be seenas having a dehumanizing effect. It is rather a lot to claim that thecultural context I spoke to is more strong for men than forwomen— I think you shall find that to be a very controversialclaim— but if that is the case, then what I said remains true: thatthe harm coming from using the word “male” in exclusivity and inpreference to “men” still stems from the interaction with thatcultural background.
“A men’s rights advocate would not have to make up trivial crap to pretend to take offense at. “This is precisely the kind of out-of-touch and, frankly, idiotic rhetoric which I have been speaking about in many of my comments here and on my own blog. If you can’t see that women are quite unfairly treated in general, try talking to a woman. Better yet, try listening.
Really? When did they start getting paid for doing the vast majority of child care?
In fairness, *I* don’t like it when you make me uncomfortable either, Jen. It’s really not fun at all. I kind of hate you when you make me feel uncomfortable. But after the time I’ve spent following your online career, I’m come to have a metric fuck-ton of respect for you. I’m your age, even a little bit older, and you’ve taken similar resources and done a lot better than I have. So when you make me uncomfortable I figure it must be for a reason.
I think it is entirely reasonable to expect that men will talk to women (and vice versa) with the intent to possibly make some kind of a connection. I even think that it’s reasonable to base that on appearance–it’s the first thing most of us notice and how we choose to present ourselves is a form of communication. However, I would like to make a distinction between being “hit on” and other methods men and women use to express interest. Being hit on at a bar is expected. At an atheist conference, I would likely expect an interested gentleman to approach me and engage me in conversation about a panel discussion, preferably while looking me in the eyes.
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/j…I was not aware that the AFL-CIO was a feminist organization.
Send him to some other woman to talk to. It’s not my day to educate the wearying.
I wonder what kind of person thinks that it is unrealistic for women to expect that the atmosphere at a conference on intellectual matters would be different from the atmosphere of a Saturday-night meet-market.
Karl, a big difference between a woman being stared at by leering men and a man being stared at by leering women is safety. I don’t go places where this is likely to happen. (I used to go to meat-markety bars/clubs when I was younger and looking for casual sex)I don’t feel safe when men honk at me while I’m walking down the street alone at night (for instance, happened this morning 2:30am). I’m 5’10”, and sometimes get mistaken for a man while wearing a heavy jacket. Smaller women of my acquaintance wouldn’t walk alone, and this is a pretty safe city, statistically.
That college stat… I’d be interested where it comes from. What I’d really like to see is, adjusted for grades, the M:F ratio of applicants and of places taken up. That’s what would tell you about discrimination in the opportunity. Now, if it’s that men are less likely to be admitted at a given grade, yes, there’s a problem. If it’s that men are less likely to apply, that a different problem, and if it’s that men have worse grades, that’s yet a different problem. I doubt very much that most feminists would deny that there’s any problem there, they just might want to establish which problem it is.Regarding equal pay… just because it’s legally required (I think it is over there, I know it is over here) doesn’t mean it actually happens. You end up with occupations that are usually filled by men being paid more than ones filled by women – bin men versus cooks, for example. There was a case about it here recently.
I’m sure it is “controversial” among feminists as it runs counter to their doctrine.
So give me examples of women being treated worse than men. I gave plenty of examples of the opposite. The fact that you do not is suspicious.
Are you saying men get paid more for looking after their own children than women do?
We live in a gender apartheid society where the major institutions of civil society all support the feminist anti-male doctrine. But in fact of course that site does not claim women are paid any differently for the same work. It insinuates it through deceptive wording, but cleverly falls short of outright lying.
If you do not know that women are going to college far more than men these days then you have just never taken an interest in the issue — which is one of the biggest issues of sexism in our society. I am not surprised at your ignorance, but you ought to be. How is it that you have never heard of this?As for equal pay for equal work I see you have not attempted to argue for it. Instead you say women who do not do the work of men should be paid as if they did. Women who are cooks you say, should be paid as if they did the work of bin men. But being a bin man is a dangerous profession. People put all sorts of hazardous material in their bins. It is also a profession that exposes you to the elements more. This is typical of male professions that pay more. When people demand that equal numbers of women die in the workplace as men do, then we shall have equality. When people demand that women’s work is equally stressful and results in women’s life expectancy being reduced to men’s then we shall have equality.But as for wages it matters not to men and women who is paid so much as who gets to spend the money — which is women. Where does the factoid that women spend 80% of the money come from? It is a quote of Gloria Steinem. Feminists happily brag that women get the money where it counts. The whole equal pay issue is a hoax and an extremely sexist and dangerous hoax designed to create dissent ion between men and women. All the while they are complaining women are paid less (for the same work – which is false) the feminists were bragging women got more money than men to spend.In fact she said it in the context of saying advertisers ought to pander to women more — which they do of course. She said since women are the ones who spend the money women should be targeted by advertisers. And that is exactly what happens which is a big part of why women are valued over men in our culture. Oh – I am sorry to bore you with these arguments you’ve heard a million times before of course.
Hmmm, I guess I did not include it because I thought it was included. One of the human rights is the right for equal treatment and the right to be treated as an equal. At this moment all white men are treated equally, but for different races and the other sex, different rules seem to apple, if not in law then in action. To say equal rights, I imply that this difference in action is removed so that all people are treated equally all the time.For me, the ultimate goal is that gender will not matter any more. That no matter what the situation, male and female are as irrelevant as blonde/brunette. But point taken: ‘equal rights’ has a historical component which may make it sound like I am only talking about equal rights in a legal sense. However, that whole list is too long to mention in normal conversation. Would something like ‘complete equality for men and women’ be better? Or does it still lack the all-compassing equality that we feminists strive for?
Some of the issue of equal pay is that women are not given the same opportunities for advancement within a given profession. Another part of the issue is that women may not be considered for certain high-paying jobs due to gender. A further issue is that professions traditionally dominated by women tend to be undervalued and lower-paying. I am a librarian and I am affected by two of these three issues. As a traditionally female profession, there are fewer opportunities for higher salaries. Also, male librarians are more likely to be advanced to higher-paying administrative positions. Here are statistics from the American Library Association showing the over-representation of male library directors (a higher percentage of male library directors than of male librarians) AND the discrepancy in pay for the exact same job:http://www.ala.org/ala/researc…As to the higher number of women in college than men, you are indeed correct on the statistic. There are approximately 50% more women going to college. However, there is little consensus as to why the number of men applying to college has dropped off. The steady decrease has been reported for years–I remember reading about it in an excerpt of “Stiffed,” by Susan Faludi, which was published in 1999. Here is a link to a 2007 USA Today article on the subject:http://www.usatoday.com/news/e…
OK, let me attack this problem twofold. First, not being a woman myself, I didn’t provide examples as I didn’t want to speak on behalf of women. Since this seems suspicious to you, why don’t I point you at a list of answers to your question that a woman provided when she got exasperated answering the same question over and over again. I speak, of course, of the Male Privilege Checklist. Of course, some of those entries are more solid than others, and there’s a rich debate to be had, but if you’re looking to listen to a woman for the first time, that’s not a bad place to start by any stretch.Second, let me address your “examples.”
It is not clear from your argument why more women going to college is a bad thing for men; one must demonstrate that men are denied the privilege and the right to seek higher education. Moreover, that statistic holds only if one averages across all fields of discipline. There are still many fields, such as physics, where women are discriminated against (often in systematic and unintentional ways, such as how pregnancy and tenure-track systems collide). As for living longer, that is a complicated issue that can’t be fairly or accurately summarized by “men are oppressed.” For example, men get killed more on-the-job, because more men have the opportunity to work, thus deflating the male-victim myth at least some. Where medical issues are concerned, note that most of the additional care that women receive is related to reproduction and nursing. When I’m capable of giving birth, then I’ll demand the same attention. Besides, many women undergo cosmetic surgery… because that is expected in a male-dominated society. Still another group of women find themselves in need of care due to anorexia or other such eating disorders that often have roots in the pressure of the male gaze.I don’t know what to say in response to your claim that women are richer in general, largely because I don’t believe it. Show your data and I might have a response. In a similar vein, it is clearly not the case that women inflict more violence on men than vice versa, and so I do not feel compelled to argue that claim further.The one point out of all of that that I will give you is that sometimes men are unfairly maligned in he-said-she-said cases where violence, stalking, harassment or something of a similar nature is involved. Of course, I tend to think that’s largely the case because so much violence is perpetrated against women that such unfair judgment is still supported in the statistical sense. That doesn’t make it right, of course, but it’s clearly not a “men’s rights” issue so much as a specific example of the difficulty of making a just society.I am glad you’ve expressed such interest in understanding the arguments that feminists such as myself (yes, men can be feminists— the idea that women are human beings shouldn’t be so controversial as to exclude men) are making. Hopefully, you’ll find it enlightening listening to women and what they have to say!
“Rights” is usually (IME) taken to mean what’s written, rather than what’s done.As general, in the rest, I agree with you. That said, I was in a better place to be proactive regarding racism once I realised that colour of skin wasn’t equivalent to hair or eye colour, which is how I saw it until I was about 9 and got bullied by the subcontinental kids in my primary school class, who tried to claim I was being racist at them. The accusation didn’t stand up for long, but it was educational.
It’s controversial more because it runs against evidence than doctrine. For instance, I dare you to name something that men are hit with that’s analogous to slut-shaming. After all, a man that sleeps around is called a “stud” or somesuch, and not a slut. Anyway, happy hunting!
Its not very difficult. Are you saying you really couldn’t do that ?????Slut shaming is an inter-female method of policing women’s gender role. Similar mechanisms work on men and in fact they are more obvious because the male role is far more narrow and is policed far more.Coward, fag, girly-man, wimp, nerd — hundreds of insults are based on making men stick to the rigid and narrow role they have to play.And you really didn’t know that did you?
Ampersand is a man not a woman. Doh!! I have seen his “male privilege checklist” before and it made me think you could write out a “poor homeless person privilege checklist” along the same lines. It’s a list of advantages that the disadvantage have.eg a poor person has the “advantage” of knowing nobody thinks they got their job because of their money. Wow. I want to be poor now. That’s such a huge advantage.Others are simply false (eg men are raped more often in the US than women are).It is a long list so pick the best one and I will address it for you.
Your response to my issues show your disinterest in gender equality. Men go to college much less? Who cares? Men die earlier? So what? Women have more spent on their health (even taking pregnancy out of the equation)? Whatever. Men are the victims of violence more? It doesn’t count unless it’s women attacking them.You’ve helped make my point that feminists have no interest in equality.
Ah, I see. You have no interest in a rational, civilized debate. Thanks for clearing that up! Here I was thinking that when I actually carefully considered the issue of (for example) college attendance, that indicated that I did care about the issue— that I in fact cared enough to think about the issue and provide a reasoned response to your claims. It seems I was wrong, and that you are, in fact, a petty troll. Once again, thank you for making that evident!
You are shifting the question from equal pay for equal work to something else. Before you do that I want you to admit that feminists have lied about equal pay for forty years. They must be held to account for what they have said. It goes to their credibility that the pushed this lie for 40 years.When you lie, you lose credibility and deservedly so.Feminists knew the figures they quoted (73 cents on dollar etc) and promoted heavily through such events as Equal Pay Day were not based on comparing men and women doing the same work at all. They lied.You seem to know about this so please either refute what I am saying or agree to it. Don’t move on to another topic and skirt around it. If feminists lied for 40 years about equal pay (and still are) why should anyone believe what they are saying?And if you do know that the figures like 73 cents on the dollar were NOT comparing men and women working the same jobs, why are you not disgusted, as I am, at this outrageous lie?Please get this issue settled and then we can talk about the topic you want to move to next – workplace discrimination in hiring. because I have plenty to say on that too, but one thing at a time.
Yes, I made a mistake in haste. Thanks for pointing it out. As for the rest of your post, see above comment. Now that you’ve started boldly and proudly claiming demonstrably false things such as that men are raped more often than women are (even restricting focus to the US, this is demonstrably false— 91% of rape victims in the US are female), I no longer feel compelled to spend time debunking your claims. A hint for the future: when one debates you in good faith, it is courteous to respect them enough to actually stick to reality.
I study dentistry and I see women being treated like second class citizens everyday. If you’re a woman in Oral Surgery, you are questioned twice as much and given half the grades than if you were a dude. Fortunately this only comes from certain older professors, but they make our time in this course particularly difficult.It’s on reality TV allll the time – loud, forthright funny men are considered ‘legends’. The same personality on a woman, and she’s an ugly annoying bitch. Personally I’ve had this applied to me multiple times because I am not a wall flower.In Movies, as long as a guy is funny, he can be overweight, ugly, short, whatever, he still gets a lead part and the hot girl. If a girl is ugly or overweight or too funny, she is immediately relegated to the part of small part comic relief, the kooky bf, or a lesbian. Or there are just no ugly girls at all.Kelly Osbourne coped more shit for being fat than she ever did for being a drug user. Not often a problem for guys.Some areas I can walk down a street in a knee length skirt and blouse and get leered at and wolf whistled. No this does not make me feel sexy and I am not secretly loving it.Woman, in Australia at least, earn less than men in the exact same position for the exact same hours.Female athletes often pose for magazines like FHM and GQ to show that they are still sexy, ‘feminine’, and not lesbians, even though they are sporty. Far less male athletes need to take their clothes off to be interviewed.Female comedians. Unless your hot, you’re a lesbian. “Get off the stage, we don’t want to hear about your period.”Of course you could find examples of each of these that are the opposite. But I’m talking about the majority here. OF COURSE things are a lot better than 50 years ago, but we are no where near finished striving for equality.
See the ALA link above, showing 1999 stats for library director pay. In 1999, female academic library directors earned 92 cents for a man’s dollar. Female public library directors earned 86 cents. My statistics are properly cited. Do you believe the ALA to be lying?
Also, I would like to see a citation for your claim that feminists have been lying about unequal pay for 40 years. Where is this reported? Has it been reported in more than one place? Who, exactly, is funding the studies that make these claims? You are asking for an awful lot of proof while providing none of your own.
Attendee’s post are a hilarious read but they also make me fear for the world
And we have all said that these are both bad things for both men and women and that it is by and large a societally perpetuated problem not a concious decision to put one sex or the other down and bringing attention to the fact that there are societally policed/ unconciously adhered to gender roles (particularly on the internet) gets you lambasted. We are arguing against the idea that it is a one way street where men are so very much more disadvantaged in every way than women… And as a women in a traditionally male role I can tell you women’s roles are policed quite a lot too… (the number of times I have had people take heavy things away from me without asking despite the fact that they struggle more with it than me, I have better upper body strength than many guys which also brings on the jokes… or make comments acting surprised that I do things like cut my own firewood…Or in a job interview say things like “well, there would be lots of long days hiking over very rugged terrain” and acting surprised when I respond that, that is one of the reasons I am applying for the job. Especially when I know a couple guys interviewing for the same position that were told “well one of the reasons we are interested in you is because there will be lots of hiking over rugged terrain”). Just because you do not have female stereotyping cast at you (probably because you are a guy) doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.(also what does it tell you of the relative value placed on these gender roles in society when one of the terrible insults that can be directed to a guy is “girly-man” or the like)
I’m in an industry where risks and dangers of injury and death are high… and guess what, it isn’t so easy for women to get into these industries… Women want to work in many areas and fields… You suggest that women do not want to be exposed to the elements more… and mainly what you are suggesting is that you have evidence that it has been engineered by women to make men do dangerous tasks rather than people putting preference on men over women choosing people for these tasks due to ingrained biases?
cgranade, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Neither. It comes from the Old French, via Latin.
You know that you’ve just provided evidence on how patriarchy hurts men too, right? The male and female gender roles are -both- the result of patriarchal culture — men are supposed to be big, powerful, superior, having sex with lots of women; women are supposed to be subservient and ‘pure’.
I would love to intelligently reply to your ideas, but I don’t have the time to educate you about the world so … I just say that you’re an idiot, and I mean that in the nicest way. I take solace in your statistical unlikelihood to reproduce.
Just because I *am* a reference librarian and finding information is what I do, I am going to add this link to the United States Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics website–the section on demographics:http://www.bls.gov/cps/earning…I doubt it will make a difference to Attendee’s arguments. His tactic seems to be to ask for examples and, when provided, to declare them false (with no proof) and demand another example. He keeps everyone on the defensive while refusing to back up his own claims. My guess? He’s trolling to get himself banned from another feminist blog so he can add to his claims of feminist censorship….
Although I’m sure you felt so clever when you wrote this, your snide comment undermines itself to anyone with knowledge or the reading comprehension to consult sources. As Goblinpaladin noted, feminist is derived from French, and ultimately the latin adjective Latin féminīnus, which means “of or relating to the feminine gender.”Female derives from the Latin diminutive noun fēmella, which means “girl, young woman.” Shame on you for your poor grasp of linguistics and etymology. Don’t pretend that you were genuinely asking this as a question, as a functioning adult wouldn’t ask if feminist was a derivative of woman.Oh and shame on you for using passive aggressive ellipses too.
“I was raised by the praise of a fan who said I upset her” from Mr. Soul, Buffalo Springfield….late 60s….