A weekly podcast called Ask an Atheist devoted the episode recorded yesterday to what it calls “The Problem of Dogmatic Feminism”.
It got some things wrong.
At the beginning Becky and Sam (the hosts, along with Eileen who said only one thing) said that both sides in the dispute over feminism and atheism/skepticism were “doubling down”; it’s not as symmetrical as that. They said good men are getting shot down and men are being demonized; that’s way too sweeping.
After they said this in general terms for awhile Sam pressed Becky for specifics, so she named Rebecca, me, Stephanie, and Jen. She sort of kind of blamed the Women in Secularism conference. She talked about the more recent dispute with DJ, and said that he had apologized for the “gossip after regretted sexual exploits” remark; that’s entirely wrong, he hasn’t apologized for that. She said that we “dogmatically” say that male speakers who hit on women are automatically predators; no we don’t. What Stephanie and Jen have argued is that speakers at events are as it were one up; they have a status that resembles that of teachers in relation to students – or, one might add (but they haven’t, that I’ve seen) priests in relation to parishioners. There’s also therapists in relation to patients, ditto doctors. I don’t think it’s dogmatic to argue that it at least can be exploitative to leverage that position to get moar sex. The complication, obviously, is that plenty of people will be perfectly happy to have sexual attention from a speaker, just as plenty of students will be perfectly happy to have sexual attention from a teacher. The role itself is inherently seductive. Becky may have this complication in mind when she calls it “dogmatic” to say that speakers should just refrain from hitting on audience members, but she didn’t spell it out, and given the rest of what she said in that part of the podcast, that’s unfortunate.
It improved a little after that, and Stephanie called in and corrected them on some points. But of course the ERV gang is flooding the comments, so that will make intelligent discussion impossible there. Anne C Hanna gives it a good shot though.
Above: Understatement.
I love hwo both sides are equally wrong…but this one side is MORE equally wrong and needs to shut up.
Someone should tell them that if you’re afraid you’ll be labeled as an asshole you should try not being an asshole rather than blaming people for pointing it out.
I thought I would try understatement for once. :- )
You know, there’s so many times that people show a fundamental inability to communicate on this issue. They have guests on that show, don’t they? How hard would it have been to line up a couple? Surely one of the women called out in that list would have been willing to be on the show and this could have been discussed a little more substantively? It seems like, barring the complete absurd MRA point of view, that they took the other side well enough themselves, but they could have had on DJ, or, well I’m having a hard time thinking of people on the other side who haven’t come off as complete loons here, but somebody.
In the previous article, Becky also claimed (among other things) that expecting “strict*” harassment policies is dogmatic:
http://askanatheist.tv/2012/06/07/sexism-it-exists-amongst-and-between-atheists
Was that point addressed in the new episode at all? I don’t see how someone can accept that harassment is a problem while dismissing the only well-supported solution.
*whatever “strict” means here, since most gatherings have had no policy whatsoever.
I’ve honestly never thought of conference speakers in this way. There have certainly been some who make me rethink my position on an academic subject. Folks who I’d defer to in their field of expertise; i.e., as an academic authority. But none that I would consider to have any sort of personal authority over me, the way may boss does at work or a teacher does over a student (or doctor/patient, or therapist/patient, etc).
I see lots of other good reasons to adopt an anti-harassment policy. But I’m scratching my head over this one. Can someone explain to me why, as an audience member or con-goer, they would feel the sort of coersion a student might feel from a teacher (employee from a boss, etc)? What authority do you feel they have over you? What sort of retaliation do you fear for saying no?
If you’ve ever heard TAA when someone calls in with fucking hero worship of Matt, you’d see EXACTLY where this comes from.
Well I guess they agree with the religious that being Rational (ie taking the best path to your desired goal) is dogmatic.
I do not see why some people have a problem with this. Speaking as a constantly on-the-make pervert, I welcome concrete policies that say “We do not accept this behaviour, that behaviour and this other behaviour.” It helps keep me out of trouble.
If I find the restrictions chafing, I don’t go to the event. It really is that simple.
You know what’s most interesting to me – how “dogmatic feminists” are constantly berated for playing the victim, yet all those spineless little bigots from the slimepit are tripping over each other trying to reach the fainting couch first over being banned for bigot-trolling FTB blogs.
Its so obvious that they are bitter over being excluded from the club, and man do they want to whine ENDLESSLY about it.
What a bunch of freaking crybabies.
P.S. that podcast is a pile of crap. is it always this bad?
@ 5 – actually I don’t think Stephanie or Jen has made that comparison. I think I added that, maybe in an effort to clarify the idea in my own head. I’m iffy about it myself – I can see it applying to people like Dawkins, but not to people like (say) me. To Name Speakers rather than all speakers as such. But then Name Speakers – well that’s enough about that, probably.
Anyway you’re right about the potential coercion – it’s not like that of a teacher or a boss. There might be a fear of shunning and being outcast, though. “Oh no, Name Speaker will hate me if I say no, and then…”
@illuminata
Not in my experience. This was just utter crap.
Could someone please tell me what ERV stands for?
For once, Google is not helpful unless Energy Recovery Ventilation is meant. If so, I have to lay off those hash brownies for a while.
Endogenous Retrovirus. It’s the name of Abbie Smith’s blog.
I’m guessing Endogenous Retro-Virus
If you pay it a visit do so on an empty stomach and take bleach, and plenty of it.
eric, the speaker-attendee sex ban currently exists (to the best of my understanding) in the Secular Student Alliance speaker’s bureau agreement. Thus, speakers are basically agreeing not to use the SSA to expose them to lots of students as potential sex partners.
This Becky person is either dishonest or foolish.
Let’s look at this quote from her:
Who said that “any gathering worth its spit” should adopt and publicize a “strict” policy? I’ve seen people say that large atheist conferences should adopt a policy, and I’ve seen people suggested policies. But they haven’t insisted that those policies be “strict.” Becky has apparently judged their sample policies as “strict,” but hasn’t explained why they are strict, let alone why such strictness is a bad thing.
Who has done this? Who has said that all men are sexual predators? Or even that all sexual predators are men?
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
Skepticism fail!
Ah yes, the SSA would be one place for a “strict” policy, for sure – especially since many of those students are in high school.
That makes tons of sense. Thank you, Ophelia and Stephanie. That’s good news.
This is just my response to the post. I write it having read only the email. Apologies therefore if I seem to ignore a comment which I haven’t read yet.
I see that being a speaker is somewhat like being a teacher. It’s a position of power to the extent that a speaker has a certain opportunity to manipulate the audience, and, opportunistically, a certain member of it (or choice of members?). Such behaviour would of course be very dishonest (hypocritical, certainly), so to that extent I don’t think it is really being “dogmatic” (is that really the word, I wonder) to expect speakers to behave with integrity in regard to people who one expects would come with at least the ostensible intention of listening. Also, there are plenty of susceptible people around, and an audience is an unknown quantity, if you take my meaning: well, alright, I mean that a person who attends a meeting or convention with the wish or hope that a certain speaker will make advances is (possibly) an exploitable (vulnerable) person. The thought is uncomfortable.
On the other hand, it’s not quite the same as with a teacher because the relationship is too informal, and the audience is of mixed age, and generally adult. So that in a sense makes understanding how best to conduct oneself rather more subtle, and weighing up the rights and wrongs of any given instance of seduction (on one side or the other) more complicated. I am inclined to the view that it would be best to err on the side of caution (not “dogmatism”) and simply make a rule about what happens at such meetings that everyone can be clear about, on the basis that being hurt is worse than being disappointed. It won’t necessarily be perfect, and no doubt therefore can be improved in the light of experience, but it, or something better, might be a good place to start. To my mind, at any rate, one thing seems quite certain: there must be some sort of understanding or expectation which applies without prejudice to everyone and of which everyone is aware.
But why would you want to have a guest on your show who’ve you’ve just demonstrated to be the objectively wronger party to the argument?
Lyanna has already said it better than me, but I think I need something clarified:
I think we’re working with different scopes of “strict”. As I understand it, one of the beefs with Grothe is that while he introduced a harassment policy for TAM, this was not actually employed strictly. That is, while a system to handle complaints was in place, it was not actually used properly to ensure that examples of harassment were recorded.
Sorta like having evacuation plans and fire alarms, but noöne’s been informed how to behave in case of fire, and we’ve cut the power to the alarms because we’re afraid the kids are gonna pull the triggers just for fun.
Just read some of those comments. There seems to be a large anti-FtB offense going on. Apparently you’re too feminist and intolerant of dissent and males, or something. They seem to forget all the males who have disagreed with various FtB authors and are still happily posting here.
Although that probably just proves the groupthink. Who needs falsifiable claims anyway?
Yep. All that misogyny stuff is bad, of course, but the really bad worrying terrible awful people are…the ones Becky named.
Too feminist! Intolerant of dissent and males! Hah! I think you sum it up very well, Deen. Luckily, FTB is still here, and will just get on with it.
Why is it that every half-wit with just enough brain cells to remember to breathe feels entitled to make vacuous and sweeping claims about feminism and the people involved in arguments over it without any detail or fact checking?
What do they just get a pass? Do they care to actually check how much of what they’re saying they can back up? Fuck these people.
A random pseudonymous commenter, of unknown affiliation and purpose, on the Interwebs once made such a statement. Now feminists everywhere have to deal with it for the rest of time.
Seriously, that’s how unfairly stacked the deck is here.
@18. The things that you are demanding citations for are all hyperlinked in the post, except for “Who said that ‘any gathering worth its spit” should adopt and publicize a “strict” policy?’ ”
To which I cite: Stephanie’s Making it Safer in the Meantime. The assumption is that if we don’t adopt a policy, one that’s much more than the JREF code of conduct, we aren’t invested in events being safe for women.
And in this post:
Comments are part of the discourse that I’m trying to reframe, and comments such as this one on that same thread :
https://proxy.freethought.online/almostdiamonds/2012/05/22/making-it-safer-in-the-meantime/#comment-82178
speak to that sentiment that an event isn’t worth its spit if it doesn’t have these policies, procedures, and codes.
Uppity women: AAA thinks you have a right to your anger, but stop using your Hammer of Shame(TM). Be moar polite to those men who think you aren’t people. Otherwise the Nice Guys will be alienated.
God, I cannot keep up this sarcasm.
Fuck this shit. People blogging about problems of harassment and sexism aren’t the fucking problem. FFS. Enough of this bullshit equivocation of outspoken bigots with outspoken anti-bigots.
Ugh. I guess ERV’s more disreputable tenants know my name now too. (I steeled myself and dove into the Periodic Table of Swearing to see Sam’s discussion with them over there, and unfortunately saw my name mentioned as well.) Gives me creepy-crawlies just thinking about being on the radar of folks like that. I guess this is what happens when one is so foolish as to have an opinion out in public. Yuck. How do you stand it, Ophelia?
Funny how the only way they can paint feminism as dogmatic is by strawwomaning it. The real problem here is not dogma, it is them being uninformed. It has been quite a pathetic showing by atheists and skeptics how so many of them are willing to overlook the facts and forgo careful readings and listening for comprehension in order to jump on the anti-woman bandwagon.
I see Ask An Atheist TV has YouTuber BionicDance on their list of cast members. She has been a target of the pitizens herself in the past and hopefully can do some intervening over there behind the scenes.
Now they are saying that many people throw out feminism as a form of dogma. They imply that people think of feminism as dogmatic because feminist bloggers are too loud/forceful. They don’t seem to contemplate that people are often blind to their privilege, and because of that construe instances of it being pointed out as per se ridiculous.
Remind me… Wasn’t a big part of the epic butthurt about E-Gate related to the notion that Rebecca Watson had abused her position of power as a keynote speaker by commenting on a blog post about the matter by someone else?
@Ophelia #26. I never said FtB’ers are the really terrible people, nor do I contend they are equally bad or worse than misogynists.
@#33, “Now they are saying that many people throw out feminism as a form of dogma. They imply that people think of feminism as dogmatic because feminist bloggers are too loud/forceful.” If “they” is me and my co-producers, let me assure you that loud/forceful =/= dogmatic. Feminism is not dogmatic in itself; its the unyielding application of it’s tropes-turned-into-dictates.
@Gordon #21: I like your reasoning and your points. I am in fact a teacher. (It’s incidentally what I turn to in order to “stand” the “yuck”, Anne–at any given moment I assume there’s two students who hate my guts for whatever reason that day. I still go on and teach).
Finally @#34: Using position as a speaker for sexual conquest is different from using your position as a speaker to editorialize. If you think the latter is distasteful, bring it up but not as an example of sexual abuse.
We’re a commercial radio show with a 56.5 min space, and not everything I’d prepared got aired/talked about. We took a call, after all. We’re releasing some supplemental recorded material so keep an eye out at the website.
As I said over at Almost Diamonds, I think this particular conflict does fall into the Framing Wars model — “We’re on the same side (harassment is bad and needs to be addressed by the community) but you’re doing it wrong, and are, therefore, dogmatic.”
If you feel an additive model is the best way to address the problem*, propose something concrete within that model, but don’t criticize the people who see it as a subtractive or zero-sum problem (to use Becky’s frame). Respond as you wish the people Doing It Wrong™ had, instead of criticizing their methods. And there are, in fact, some other people doing this. Promote those people and ignore the ones who are Doing It Wrong™, unless and until someone else brings them up.
* Still trying to figure out how this would work — women start harassing men? I’m not sure what the ‘additive’ privilege would be, here.
I had another comment after #29 in reply to #18 that was awaiting moderation 🙁 Did I step across some boundaries I shouldn’t have? Is it still in the queue?
MyaR, you’ve given me some good homework 🙂
Dunc: yes it was, and that accusation’s been raised again in the AAA comments. (Along with LOTS of other personal accusations… go have a look, if you can stomach it. Not a speck of evidence to be found.)
You seem like a nice person and all, but this sentence is utter nonsense.
Am I dogmatic now?
Becky @ 38 – no, it was just links that got it held up. Sorry. It’s out now. # 30.
Becky @ 36 – I wasn’t talking about you in that comment, but about the two comments by Mike Gillis, who, I take it, is something to do with AAA.
Meanwhile: did you register my correction of your mistake when you said DJ had apologized for the “locker room gossip” remark? You’re wrong on the facts there. It would be nice if you acknowledged that. We (we dogmatic feminists) get saddled with a lot of falsehoods of that kind, and It’s Not Helping.
@11 and @17 – thanks for the responses. I understand and generally agree with the comparison as it relates to SSA events – I was thinking more about conferences like TAM when I posed my question.
Buliding on Stephanie’s @17 response, I think its worth pointing out that strong guidelines about speaker/student relations have little or nothing to do with feminism, as there seem to me (to my news-reading eye) about as many cases of teachers/authority figures becoming involved with male students as female students. Any objection to such rules (as @17 proposed) on the grounds that its some sort of dictatorial uber-feminism is really missing the boat.
***
Becky @36 – do you seriously read the proposed template for a harassment policy as an example of “unyielding application of it’s tropes-turned-into-dictates?” Its a template that offers a variety of options. It is extremely hard to see your comment as anything more than ridiculous hyperbole when compared to the actual wording of the template, which lays out a wide ranging ‘cafeteria menu’ of possible responses and doesn’t even specify how many incidents should occur before management responds. Contrast the template’s ‘one/two/seventeen’ with your description of ‘unyielding application.’ Your description just doesn’t fit. Its like you didn’t even read the thing.
Why, Dunc, you couldn’t possibly be hinting that Becky and Sam of AAA may have abused their power by commenting about things Rebecca Watson (and everyone else who was named) said on a blog somewhere (without giving her or them equal air time to respond)? Where is the pitizen outrage over this impious act?
Yes, addressed and acknowledged in supplemental podcast part 1. It is true that many people on the receiving end of assault are pegged as regretting their sexual exploits after the fact. I agree this helps no one, and is wrong.
@Becky,
I’ve been a teacher too, but it was at the college level, where everyone is mostly there semi-voluntarily, either because they want to learn, or because they want to simulate wanting to learn well enough to graduate. So I’ve never had to avail myself of that assumption. And in particular, I’ve never had to worry about even those students who might not like me deciding to engage in an obsessive and interminable campaign of misogynistic harassment against me, seeing as how the teacher is generally the one with power in that relationship. So whatever my students may have thought about me, they mostly kept it to themselves (and to the anonymous end-of-course surveys, in which the few negative comments I’ve received have generally been pretty tame).
Fortunately, I’m probably small enough fry here that I don’t really have to worry about being seriously targeted by ERV’s tenants, but they’ve definitely done the ongoing harassment thing against many other women (and men!) whose views they found uncongenial. And that’s a hell of a lot more serious thing to worry about than a couple of students hating me and griping to each other about me in the privacy of their own dorm room.
Godalmighty. Now Becky has posted an email I sent her on the AAA site, without pausing for the little formality of asking my permission.
And @ 46 – no, that’s not what I asked. You said in the radio show that DJ had apologized for the locker room gossip/regretted sexual exploits comment. He hasn’t. You didn’t say a word about that in the podcast. You said he’s apologized and we simply rejected his apology, and that’s just not true. You should acknowledge that.
I see Becky is doubling down. And the comments at AAA are TOXIC!!
Yes. I was going to ignore them today and thereafter, but now that Becky has put up that stupid post comparing Justicar to a nice pastor who says something religious…I suppose I can’t ignore them quite yet. Which is annoying, because it just gives more oxygen to the toxifiers.
Thought I’d share the comment I posted over there:
I can’t comment over there because it’s effectively incompatible with my browser/input combo, so I’m saying this here.
WTF is Becky talking about re Natalie Reed’s blog post she links to? I went and read the whole thing, which is basically A Short History of Feminism and how it cannot be dogmatic because it is not one thing. There was nothing about feminism being applied dogmatically (although I still don’t know what that means either, especially with the example given).
I don’t know what Becky is talking about re anything! I really don’t. I think she’s bullshitting, and I have no idea why.
Forgot to follow this one up for a few days… Anyway:
That was not my point. My point (which I thought it was sufficiently obvious that it didn’t actually need to be spelled out in 30-foot sans-serif capital letters of fire, but apparently not) is that if you think the latter is is distasteful (personally I don’t, but this isn’t about me) then surely you should regard the former as problematic at least. Yet it seems that the very same people who squealed loudest about the latter are also the people dismissing the former. This suggests to me that a double-standard is in operation.
To suggest that I was bringing this up “as an example of sexual abuse” is remarkably obtuse. I have a hard time believing that anybody around here could genuinely think that that was my intention, but it seems that there is no limit to the absurdities people will espouse in order to avoid the obvious conclusion… But, for the hard of understanding, here it is in black and white: this is not an example of sexual abuse (or even harassment, which is a slightly different thing), it is an example of a blatantly sexist double-standard, whereby people simultaneously believe that Rebecca Watson’s use of her position as a keynote speaker to “editorialise” is so unacceptable as to merit a year-long campaign of vilification, but certain well-known male speakers use of their positions as keynotes speakers to hit on anyone and everyone is completely unobjectionable, and anybody even hinting at anything to the contrary is a man-hating Talibanesque killjoy. In short, it is an attempt to address the question “Do speakers enjoy a position of privilege and power?” by pointing out that many of the people arguing that they don’t (in the context of making sexual advances) have previously gone to great lengths to argue that they do (in the context of saying “Guys, please don’t do that.”)
Was that plain enough, or do you need me draw you some kind of diagram?