A couple of more notes on Harris’s pig piece, for thoroughness, just because they’re nagging at me. I was short on time when I did the first post so I rushed it.
I am well aware that sexism and misogyny are problems in our society. However, they are not the only factors that explain differences in social status between men and women.
Nobody said they were. It was Harris who tried to answer the question about why so few women in your audiences as if innate differences were the only factors. It was Harris who gave the simplistic one-factor explanation, not the pesky PC feminists.
For instance, only 5 percent of Fortune 500 companies are run by women. How much of this is the result of sexism? How much is due to the disproportionate (and heroic) sacrifices women make in their 20’s or 30’s to have families?
Good grief – can he really think those two are mutually exclusive? The fact that women have to make disproportionate sacrifices to have families is partly due to sexism.
Anyone who thinks disparities of this kind must be entirely a product of sexism hasn’t thought about these issues very deeply.
But hardly anyone does think that. It’s Harris who’s not thinking very deeply here. (Go away and learn how to think, is it?)
[H]aving been raised by a single mother since the age of two, I have always had a very visceral sense that men have a responsibility not to be evil jerks. And when they are, they should be sorted out—physically, if need be—by good men. Call me old-fashioned.
Well no, I’m afraid I’m just going to call you sexist again. When the sorting out doesn’t need to be physical, then why on earth can’t women (also) do it? Why specify men? Women and men both need to be able to teach men who are being evil jerks to stop being that.
It’s weird. I mean, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I while I would still disagree with him, I wouldn’t be particularly perturbed if he just said “Well, I was speaking off the cuff, and I realize that societal influences encouraging women to be less assertive/aggressive are very real, which might be part of the reason why less women follow me than men, but I happen to believe that there are significant genetic factors underlying these tendencies as well, and that was the only thing that came to mind when I was asked the question.”
I mean, it would still indicate a certain cluelessness, and I think it would be a legitimate question as to why that was the only thing that came to mind, and I would want to know why he happens to believe that, but at least it would state his position (or what I presume is his position) without being both handwavy and passive-aggressive. But nowhere in that post does he actually come out and say this.
Just so much arrogance in his reply. And cluelessness. I get that he’s TRYING to not be misogynistic. But when you can’t hear what people are telling you about the nonsense that comes out of your mouth, you’re not trying hard enough. Can he really think that “the disproportionate (and heroic) sacrifices” that he talks about are unrelated to the sexism in our society? And why does he have to moan about “political correctness” (who is he? Bill O’Reilly?) when people are telling him what they hear when he makes statements like this. Part of being a real humanist means listening to what others say about their experiences. Too many of our so-called leaders are so impressed with their own smarts that they are incapable of acknowledging the harm they cause by their inability to listen to others with a little humility.
Fucking hell. That’s WORSE, Sam!
For crying out loud … STOP DIGGING!!!ELEVENTY11!!!!
There’s something about the way it is written that is indirect and hidden that is rather distressing:
I don’t think the literal meaning here is sexist or offensive. But I do think the implicit meaning here is. He’s dancing around the subject and asking things in questions without just giving direct statements.
He’s not saying that there is any gender essentialism here. But he keeps implying it (especially his references to hormones). This is a dishonest and suspicious way to talk. He’s not being frank.
Anyway, what is a good answer to “Why do you believe there is fewer women than men in the atheist movement?” besides a sort of boring “I don’t know.” Libertarians also get asked this question and give terrible answers. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a direct, solid answer.
What kind of public intellectual, a moral philosopher no less, responds to criticisms with arguments that include “It’s PC gone mad” and “Some of my best friends are women”?
How on earth did Sam get that gig?
Well one comforting point: Sam Harris is in no way a moral philosopher.
Ophelia, I would like to see you address the truth or falsity of Harris’ claims on innate differences between men and women instead of just calling them sexist and offensive. If they are true they shouldn’t be offensive, and if they are false they shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Not only that, but there’s a problem with his kind of question. What, in his opinion then, is the right amount of effort into getting rid of the sexism? Whenever people ask the questions like that it’s never ever ever asked in the pursuit of actually combating sexism, it’s about trying to get people to shut up about sexism. Seriously, looking at those questions, how many fucks do you think he gives about how much is actually the result of sexism?
Ethan, please pay attention. I haven’t called his claims offensive.
What kind of public intellectual, a moral philosopher no less
He’s a neuroscientist, not a philosopher. That didn’t stop him from writing a book about moral philosophy. I believe Richard Carrier liked it because it agreed with him, and perhaps it’s more readable than Carrier, but I wound up using it as a replacement for Ambien. As a philosopher, he’s a good public intellectual. (Remember, “public intellectual” apparently also encompasses Oprah and the Duck Dynasty guys.)
the truth or falsity of Harris’ claims on innate differences between men and women
You’ll note that Harris himself doesn’t defend those claims. He says there are observable differences but backs away from saying whether they are innate, or cultural. Unless you are referring to something different by Harris than what I have been looking at? (In which case you can neatly rebut me by referring me to where Harris claims there is an innate difference, and then we’ll maybe have some merriment)
And I would like to see someone define estrogen vibes.
The problem is he didn’t make any testable or sensible claims, he threw out a bunch of half-assed stereotypes and then balked when he got called on it.
Unless of course there is some testable definition of “estrogen vibe” no one on the planet but Sam Harris is aware of.
Ethan @7. Smiling is the only human behavior that is provably genetically determined. Even blind newborns smile. Unlike other babies, they stop after a while because they never see anyone smile. So even that simple behavior requires reinforcement from other people to persist. For the rest, we’re predisposed to some complicated behaviors, such as learning language, but the actual form they take is culturally determined. German babies raised by Russians don’t start using German word order because of their Teutonic genes, or something.
Do you really want to set yourself up to argue that without any evidence for genetic determination of comparatively simple behaviors, somehow, after thirty or forty years of cultural influences, genetics suddenly pops out and determines who becomes CEO? The hereditary aristocracy used to think that they had special blood like that. They also used to think the Earth was flat, with about the same amount of supporting evidence. “But when I look outside all I see is male CEOs / flat plains, so obviously the Earth is flat, CEOs must be male” etc.
@ Ophelia
But you have acted offended by them. And you still aren’t addressing the truth of the claims / insinuated by the claims.
@ Marcus 10
From “I’m Not the Sexist Pig You’re Looking For”:
His estrogen comment insinuated innate differences, in that estrogen is part of what makes men and women different and that men generally have a greater proclivity for Harris’ confrontational style.
It’s not just that though, he has made truth-claims about what his readership is like (e.g. predominately male) and that he thinks a less aggressive and more nurturing style of discourse would attract a greater percentage of females to his work. The point that I’m trying to make is that these are truth claims which can be right or wrong, but nobody seems to care whether they’re right or wrong they just care whether they are sexist. I don’t think the truth can be sexist, and to get upset by these claims before we determine if they are true or not is irrational.
@ leni
Harris’ original statement was:
“The atheist variable just has this – it doesn’t obviously have this nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men.”
The implication being that women have a greater proclivity for nurturing and coherence-building communication than men due, in part, to innate differences (e.g. estrogen). Note that he isn’t saying that all women are identical, just that this is a general trend.
It seems obvious to me that he isn’t discriminating against women or being prejudiced against them. If the implications of his claim are correct, then this is information which must inform any fight for the rights of women.
Quixote:
Completely unrelated (kinda), but this reminds me of the effect the Japanese language has on the brain. People who learn Japanese as their first language process certain insect sounds completely differently than people with a different language as their first. They process the sounds in the language center. This is true for non Japanese people who learn Japanese first and it doesn’t happen to Japanese people who learn a different language first. Completely cultural. Altering the way the brain processes sounds.
Radioactive Elephant:
Can you give me some kind of pointer for more information on that about Japanese and insect sounds? Not that I think you’re making it up, but (a) I would love to know more, and (b) to be able to back it up if someone says “hey, you’re making that up!”
He changed the subject from criticism of his comments to misogyny “over there”. And implies women are not taught to be evil jerks. And then beat his chest.
Sir Sam “Robin” Harris of Camelot just bravely ran away.
Vicki:
Look up Tadanobu Tsunoda, he’s the one who did the initial research.
Click here for a 2002 article from Japan Close up (not a science magazine, but it does give information on the research). There was a more recent article in something or another I can’t find… scientific american, or science, or better homes and gardens.
@ 14 Ethan
You are ignoring that these truth claims rely on stereotyping by gender. To promote a stereotype without knowing whether it is true or not is harmful. I suggest you read about stereotype threat. Women have historically been disenfranchised by sexist stereotypes concerning things for which they are suitable or not suitable. So Harris assuming gender differences by default (while admitting ‘other factors’ exist) is erring on the side of prejudice.
@ Silentbob 20
Truth claims rely on nothing but truth. That’s why they are called truth claims. Stereotypes are only sexist if we are prejudiced on the basis of them. Just because we want to live in a world where everyone is precisely the same and no one is better than anyone else at anything doesn’t mean that is the world we actually live in, and we ignore this truth at our peril.
Ethan @20, care to apply your own philosophy to the OP?
I put it to you that everything Ophelia has written therein is true.
(Do you dispute that?)
“And when they are [jerks], they should be sorted out—physically, if need be—by good men. “
I thought we lived in a society of law. Is Harris advocating that the good men beat up the bad ones? Does he think the good men are big and strong and the bad ones are wimps? In his world, not only does might make right, but also (in fantasy), right makes might.
Ethan,
Do try harder! Nothing can be a truth claim unless there is evidence to support it, unless there is more evidence to support it than there is to support any other claim. Is there any evidence beyond ex post facto rationalisation to support Harris’ notion that there is an inherent difference between men and women which – amazingly – makes women quite unsuited to any form of atheist activism?
What really happened? A man with a high opinion of himself made a statement which is either the supreme example of mis-speaking or an insight into what he really thinks. So he was asked to clarify. Thus far, normal human interaction.
Now, look around you if you will. A man claims that women cannot do confrontational debate – he knows that and he thinks he knows why. A host of people, many of them women, appear as if by magic and argue with him – most very rationally, some also with anger. This happens across a dozen blogs. And in the midst of it a little head pops up like fly agaric shouting that women cannot argue and he knows that because oestrogen, because a Great Man said so.
Like you, he doesn’t even spot that not only is he telling this nonsense to a group of well-practiced debaters but that the majority of them are women. Cognitive dissonance doesn’t come much better than that.
If you want to prove your theory you will need to establish that oestrogen entirely governs the behaviour of women and that neither they nor their male interlocutors have ever been socialised in any way. I don’t think you’ll be able to do it, somehow.
Ethan,
Ophelia “acted offended” how?
That’s your projection.
Harris made a claim. That claim is incorrect and he has provided no evidence to the contrary. Just like gods, the effects of hormones that make women less active in the atheist community can be assumed not to exist without evidence that they do.
Ethan, have you noticed lately what happens when women do try to be active in the atheist community or how men respond to women entering any community, hobby or profession that they have decided they do not want women to be involved in as anything other than cheerleaders, mommies and sex toys for the men?
We aren’t exactly being welcomed with open arms as respected equals.
From “I’m Not the Sexist Pig You’re Looking For”:
…there are psychological differences between men and women which, considered in the aggregate, might explain why “angry atheism” attracts more of the former. Some of these differences are innate
“Psychological differences” will include learned behaviors. I didn’t see anything following the “some of these are innate” other than a dangling unevidenced assertion – what is innate? How do we know? There is nothing there to argue with.
Stereotypes are only sexist if we are prejudiced on the basis of them
You forgot the part where stereotypes are only stereotypes if they are wrong: a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.
Stereotypes are sexist because they oversimplify, i.e. One is basing one’s beliefs on something incorrect.
You’re making some desperate, weak, arguments. Why?
he has made truth-claims about what his readership is like (e.g. predominately male)
Aah, but he doesn’t demonstrate a causal relationship for that correlation. It could have nothing to do with estrogen and everything to do with Harris well-poisoning style of argument being more culturally appealing to a certain group that simply happens to be more male. Or it could be that Harris’ style appeals more to sexist males.
You and he have a lot of work ahead of you to demonstrate that any of this is due to innate differences between genders.
Good ol’ Andrew Sullivan. Missing the point as usual.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/09/16/the-offense-industry-on-the-offense/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+andrewsullivan%2FrApM+(The+Dish)
So, Harris gives some weird women-don’t-get-into-criticizing comment, finds out that women indeed do get into criticizing, then tries to change the subject to women’s social status in general. Which he tries to partly explain by telling us women make sacrifices to have families. Does Harris think women like sacrificing their earning potential over time to be unpaid childcare labor? Does he think we just do it innately? He doesn’t really explain, and he could’ve avoided a subject he doesn’t seem to know much about by just saying, “Look, I spoke without thinking. Women can be plenty critical, and I’ll let them answer questions on women in atheism.”
This would be the same Andrew Sullivan who went positively apeshit when another blogger referred to him as “hysterical”? (I should say, arguably with good reason — until that incident, I had been oblivious to the gendered (and, by extension, homophobic) implications of that word, so his umbrage on that occasion did enlighten at least one person.)
But then, that’s pretty much why I stopped reading Sullivan long ago. He’s always been amazingly tolerant of shitty behavior except when it’s his ox being gored, at which point the behavior becomes an absolute outrage.
Ugh,
At#17 my comment should have read,
“And implies women are not taught to not be evil jerks.”
I hate it when the best reading of something requires a double negative to make sense.
Side point: Regarding Tadanobu Tsunoda, his research is pretty awful. He’s still operating under the ‘left-brain/right-brain hemisphere’ model, which was tossed out a long time ago (for being trivially correct, but very wrong if one assumes it’s significant (i.e. there might be a 51/49 or 52/48 split in brain dominance, but not a 70/30)).
We don’t process music in a “music sphere”. Music is sound, and as such is processed on both sides of the brain. It may hit a language centre (Wernicke’s area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernicke%27s_area), which is in the left-sphere in right-handed people. Not “Western people”: right-handed people.
It’s an interesting idea, but given the info in that article seems to imply he’s unfamiliar with neuroscience, I’d have a hard time taking his research seriously.
If anyone is curious, the most recent academic article of his that I can find is from 1989: “Human Cerebral Dominance and Significance of a Subconscious Sensor for Detecting Auditory Signals”, International Journal of Neuroscience, 1989, Volume 47, Issue 1-2.
The fact that women have to make disproportionate sacrifices to have families is
partly due to sexismdue to biology.FTFY
Guy Incognito – no, that’s not a fix. It’s wrong.
Obviously women have to make disproportionate sacrifices to bear children and to nurse them, but apart from that, biology doesn’t dictate that they have to do all the sacrificing from birth to whenever the kids move out.
Don’t bother me now guys, I’m working on my estrogen vibe detector.
Just gotta get this thingamajig to work with that whatchamacallit, then take the widget and plug it into the whirligig…..and….dammit, the whole thing just blew up….again!!
I am. I am saying that. (Substitute any dominant and oppressed group – the hierarchy of status is bogus.)
For example, let’s assume completely for the sake of argument that there exist, inherently, “normally distributed psychological differences between the sexes” along the lines he describes and that these are substantial and of significant effect. (Again, this is completely for the sake of argument.) The reason certain psychological qualities and skills confer higher status is sexism.
I’ve devoted a great deal of time and energy, for several years, to promoting critical thinking and argumentative skills. I don’t believe, however, that those qualities and skills warrant higher status than those related to care and nurturing. Not only are care and nurturing of vital importance in themselves, which should be obvious to anyone, they’re essential to the development of critical thinking and the moral courage to stand by one’s positions and ideas.
I think I mentioned Oliner and Oliner’s The Altruistic Personality recently. It’s a study of the people who rescued Jewish people during the Holocaust, and those who didn’t. The most important factor in determining who would be in which group appears to be not a family and community that encouraged critical thinking and argumentation, but one that was nurturing and caring of these people as children and of others. Given our cultural bias, this isn’t intuitive, but it makes sense. Children who are nurtured, who are treated as valuable, are more likely to see themselves as valid intellectual and moral agents. Children who see those around them caring for others are more likely to act to protect those in danger.
***
I continue to be amazed at how obtuse these arguments are. People like Harris fail to recognize both how their own sexist statements affect women’s level of interest in the movement/community and how they’re first claiming women aren’t so interested in criticism and argumentation and then, when women respond, dismissing women’s criticism and argumentation as paranoid political correctness.