Jebus. After reading Ben Radford’s reply to the criticisms of his awful article denying sexism in the toy store, I feel even more repelled. It was ludicrous. It was ridiculous. It was pretentious.
Here’s Radford claiming the high ground.
So when I insisted that Riley was wrong in her claim that girls are forced or “tricked” into buying or liking pink items or princesses, my purpose was not to be pedantic, but instead to keep the discussion grounded and rooted in objective evidence.
No, Radford does not get to claim to be “grounded and rooted in objective evidence”, not after that nonsense aout women evolving to pick berries and nurture sick kids (I notice he doesn’t even try to defend that crap this time around). But worse, what he does immediately after piously declaring his skeptical sobriety, is to defend his freakishly stupid argument that girls like pink because it is the color of their doll’s skin.
“One obvious reason is that dolls are by far the most popular toys for girls. What color are most dolls? Pink, or roughly Caucasian skin-toned. There are, of course, dolls of varying skin tones and ethnicities (the popular Bratz dolls, for example, have a range of skin tones). But since most girls play with dolls, and most dolls are pink (a green- or blue-skinned doll would look creepy), it makes perfect sense that most girls’ toys are pink.”
Rebecca apparently believes that most dolls do not have “pink, or roughly Caucasian skin-tones.” To Rebecca, the claim that most dolls have “pink, or roughly Caucasian skin-tones” is a “ridiculous fantasy story.” What’s her evidence for this? Did she do any research? Nope, she zoomed in on a screen capture of Riley taken with a cell phone and concluded that few if any of the dolls are pinkish. (Watch the first ten seconds of the video and see how the background colors change every few seconds; this is pretty much the definition of a flawed experiment, as she’ll get different tones depending on when she freezes the picture.)
Who’s right, me or Rebecca? I could cite studies about the dearth of minority skin tones in children’s dolls, but there’s a much easier way to do it. Decide for yourself: the next time you’re in a toy store, craft store, or anywhere else where dolls are sold, look at the skin tones on the majority of the dolls. Are they roughly pink tones, or are they another color? Or do a simple Google image search for “dolls” and see what skin color most of them show up as; according to Rebecca, it will be anything but pink.
OK, Mr Objective Evidence, please ground this exceedingly peculiar claim, which I have never seen made before, in some of that real evidence. I tried that google search thing he recommended, and yeah, Rebecca was right: most of them weren’t that unholy bright shade of pink associated with girly toys. Here, for example, is a nice representative image that turned up, with lots of dolls:
All different shades turn up from off-white to brown, but none are actually pink. Lots of the dolls are dressed in a nice pastel pink; compare their dresses to their skin tones.
I can’t believe I have to explain this. It is simply and obviously not true that the packaging of girls’ toys is designed to blend in with their skin, or their doll’s skin. I’d like to see some of that evidence that toy manufacturers sample nice Caucasian girls’ skin color and use that as a key for choosing the color of their toy washing machine and its cardboard box. I’d like to see some evidence that girls want toys that, chameleon-like, they can blend in against when playing with them naked. I would like to see evidence that somehow girls desire toys painted in skin tones while boys are looking for something that reminds them of cyanotic corpses. I would like to see some measurements in which Radford pulls out a colorimeter, aims it at some little girls face, then aims it at the garish bright pink of a toy box, and shows me that they are even close to the same color.
You don’t get to claim to be the one true objective skeptic while spouting such ad hoc bullshit.
Then he makes it worse. Rebecca Watson pointed out another major flaw in his arguments:
Here’s another reason Ben made up for why girl toys are pink: Pink is also the most popular color for girls’ items for the same reason that white is the most popular color for new cars: that’s what most people prefer. Get it? Popular things are popular because they’re popular. Pink things are popular because people prefer them.
Radford’s rebuttal is to repeat the same argument with added condescension!
I’m not sure what Rebecca doesn’t understand about this, but I’ve spelled out the logic below, maybe this will help:
1) Most girls play with dolls
2) Most toys that girls play with are dolls (i.e. they are by far the most common girls’ toy)
3) Most dolls are pink
4) Therefore most girls’ toys are pink.I can do a Venn diagram for her, but it’s valid.
It’s circular. It’s built on a false premise and it says nothing at all. The question is why, in our particular culture, do we have a specific set of gender roles, why do we apply pressure to children to conform to those roles, and as a very secondary question, why are girls’ roles so brightly flagged with pink?
Radford is begging the question. Of course little girls like Riley are urged to conform, and of course it’s all tied up in societal rewards for fitting in to a particular pattern of behavior; Riley can recognize that, why can’t Radford? In this case, our social norms erect great big unmistakeable flags to tell little girls that one specific set of objects are explicitly tied to their identity as girls. They defy them at their peril, and sometimes even four-year-olds can tell when they’re being fitted for a straitjacket.
Radford is supposed to be a fairly widely-known and respectable member of the skeptic community. I am appalled and disappointed that these babblings are how he responds to criticism, and that further he has the gall to pretend he’s the one with the “objective evidence”.
doktorzoom:
No, no, Scott is innocent of this one. Smurfahontas is the brainchild of James Cameron.
We Are Ing #484:
Agreed, 100%. I’ve noticed that one common tactic of gender essentialists, when confronted with counter-arguments from social sciences, is to point at a few flaky studies (often well-known of specialists and already debunked) and conclude that the whole field is therefore unreliable.
Which is of course a bit rich, coming from people who quote half-baked evo-psych nonsense.
This assumes there is fully-baked evo-psych nonsense, which is nonsensical.
Pterryx at 453 quoted for MF truth:
Jadzia626 @466, I’d missed Argumentum ad Feminam! Thanks@! And thank you for the confirmation about the Smithsonian link.
Debbie Goddard, thanks for actually addressing some of the concerns about Ben Radford’s actions vs. blog policy. Some people have suggested restoring deleted comments–but once they’re deleted, I think they are gone forever without any evidence or electronic trail. I’d like it if everyone who has posted a comment at CFI that never appeared would pipe up here with the date, approximate time, and gist of that comment.
‘Tis @#503: I suppose the point of comments like that one is to build in-group cohesion? It’s the kind of shit I’d expect from Ing or Walton. If you don’t know what you’re talking about–and I’m quite sure you don’t–why offer ignorant sweeping generalizations like that? Never mind, I answered that already.
While I’m at it, I’ll assert that anybody still using the term ‘gender essentialism’ unironically is disqualified from being taken seriously on the subject.
meh, brick wall. Never mind.
Given that you long ago lost any claim to credibility on the subject, your assertions are of solely humorous interest.
Ah yes, the hysterical male who declared me an enemy while (I can only presume) waving his fist impotently up in the air and hissing CUUUUUUUUUUUURSEEEEEEEEEEES, is declaring who is disqualified from being taken seriously.
A) It’s on purpose because it’s a cute and accurate nickname
B) I know you have seen me explain exactly why it’s so shitty of you to harp on any of my misspellings intentionally, so I can only assume you’ve given up any pretenses of decency and have just decided to embrace your full privilege to shit on others.
For those who don’t know Sven/Chas here knows I’m dyslexic, because I ‘outed’ about it because he kept mocking me, and chooses to continue badgering me about it. Because it’s part of myself I can’t really readily change, though I make the best effort to compensate for it and he tries to exploit that because he’s a piece of shit.
Umm …ChasCPeterson, you must mean that anyone using the term ‘gender essentialism’ unironically unless referring to those who can be described as gender essentialists, right?
Or do you really think that no one exists who actually believes in gender essentialism? If so, you are unfortunately mistaken. Idiots and bad philosophy thrive still.
of course not, seeing that he’s (sort of) one of them. he’s objecting to the label, not the content
@Jadehawk
I’d be happy to give him a different label if that’s the objection.
Okay, I tried for a funny which didn’t work. Please don’t beat me too hard.
There was an interesting interview I just heard awhile ago on Star Talk (the physics of superheros about how “dolls” are classified in such a way as to have a much higher tax than other toys are. Because of this, Mattel managed to get the X-men classified as “not humanoid”, because anything human-like gets classified as a doll, but monsters don’t. Neil was quite upset at the idea that the X-men of all people, whose entire story arc is trying to be treated like people, got legally classified as not human. Doesn’t explain the GI Joe business, but might explain some of them.
Barbie had pretty clothes to wear while GI Joe had “kung-fu grip”. Which one was made for action?
*snark*
@ Jadzia626:
I hadn’t encountered “argumentum ad feminam” yet, thanks a lot! Alas that the phrase is so useful online…
—
@ ‘Tis Himself #503:
Even with a pretty pink Just-Like-Mommy™ oven? ;-)
—
@ ChasCPeterson #505
Of course, silly. The FemiHorde needs to build up her FemiFlock HiveMind! Sheesh.
—
@ We Are Ing #507:
Ugh. That’s seriously fucked up :-(
Headdesk! Urk. I knew that, too, of course. I am apparently incapable of remembering anything right when mentioning that movie…which starred Johnny Depp, Meryl Streep, and the always versatile Ralph the Wonder Llama. I can hardly wait until it’s released on LaserDisk!
Is there a website where I can find my local Avatar haters’ club? It seems most people are surprised when I say I not only didn’t like it, but hated it with a passion. I still haven’t encountered in meatspace anyone else who didn’t like it.
And the fact that I only go to the movies for IMAX anymore, and paid like $18 for IMAX and 3D for that POS, and nonetheless I was ready to leave at the 20-minute mark, having predicted how it would end, but since I had booked a seat at the very center of a packed theater I just let a giant “MEH” out and sat there hating myself for 2 hours with the hope that it would maybe turn around…
@Andyo
Are you talking about the racist Avatar noble savage white hope movie? or the racist “who cares if it makes sense” Airbender casting?
Omg. that’s the same person?
Oh, I know almost nothing about the Airbender thing. Besides, it got terrible reviews, so I had nothing to persuade me to see it, let alone pay $18 for it (Damn you, Ebert!). I am no Shyamalan fan either, and I thought The Others got screwed by Sixth Sense, in that is a much better movie, but superficially similar.
I guess I’ll post here as a follow-up, although it might only be seen by those who are subscribed to comments…
CFI’s CEO/President Ronald Lindsay posted today on CFI’s blog (and therefore on CFI’s front page) about blog policy and Ben Radford’s posts. Here’s a snippet from the beginning of the last paragraph:
Considering that, I suggest that may be a good place for leaving comments regarding the posting policies, etc.
Thanks a lot, Debbie.
I just posted there to suggest that to avoid another PR disaster in the future, the CFI may want to think about ways to be more reactive. Because whether they like it or not, as long as members’s “personal views” are published on their website, it will impact the public’s perception of what the CFI stands for or against.
BTW, here’s the direct link:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/about_free_thinking/
Also, Ron could have done better than characterizing Ben’s gullibility and basic scientific goofs as “may have” and “might have.” Jesus Christ. The man made blatantly irrational statements—doll skin is “pink”—and Ron can’t bring himself to say so without weaselly qualifiers. Yeah, yeah, I know. Gotta defend your own. But honestly.
Poor showing.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/about_free_thinking/ is quite hilarious. What it basically says is
1) We’re not responsible for anything written on our frontpage
2) You’re stupid.
It is!
Yes. But Radford’s was not how critical inquiry is supposed to work. That was the point.
Ah, so not because your mission is critical inquiry. Good to know!
Broadly speaking.
I thought you were supposed to be committed to critical inquiry. Does that have any meaning to you at all?
So he may have done what he’s expressly admitted doing.
The hell you do.
Just so, SC. I picked up on the same “may have” bullshit equivocation (see my comment on the “This is what skepticism has come to” thread that I’m too lazy to link).
Oh good lord, this IS the “skepticism” thread. Dear me.
Er,… :)
Coincidentally, I have them both open as well.
My response:
Freedumb, man!
Wait. What?
*seethe*
Yes, apparently rational skeptical freethinkers see feminism for what it is: a religious orthodoxy.
But they also condemn sexism.
Uh huh.
SC:
No, no…seriously? What in the fuck? This is way beyond waffling, this is mind-boggling stupidity.
I wonder about his definition of “orthodoxy.
Oh, talking about skepticism, I told my husband of the pink hypothesis, and I swear to all the gods I don’t believe in that he has never heard of RW, or the CFI.
-Most girls play with dolls
*Say who? I hardly see ours play with them.
-Most toys that girls play with are dolls
*What, that’s not logical. Even if most girls play with dolls it doesn’t mean they don’t play with a million other things that aren’t dolls.
-Dolls’ skin is pink
*What? Are you kidding me? I worked years in mixing dye. It isn’t.
-Therefore, most things girls play with are pink
*You completely lost me there.
well, that was a really pathetic effort by the CFI. I have taken the time to take apart that bullshit, if anyone’s interested:
http://jadehawks.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/commenting-on-the-cfis-non-response/
Good post, Jadehawk.
Actually, the criticisms of Mooney’s appointment were. He had shown a complete and appalling failure at critical inquiry and skepticism in the TJ fiasco, which was plainly due to his strong personal bias against a group of atheists (CFI doesn’t value us much as potential donors, I guess). He ignored obvious signs that he was falling for a concocted story and that his blog was infested by sockpuppets, and banned Ophelia Benson and others for asking questions and for simple criticism while allowing a handful of fawning loons to continue posting.
They brought him in and gave him a public forum right after this, and, if memory serves come to think of it, when people tried to discuss the matter and air their criticisms on the CFI forums the moderators posted in support of Mooney and then shut down the threads.
The problem for Melody is that she’s forced to constantly do damage control because they keep doing damage by ignoring their own mission.
That was a great take-down, Jadehawk. I see there’s not many comments below Lindsay’s post. Of course, considering it’s basically a non-response, I’m not surprised that it doesn’t incite discussion.
QFFT!
The NOMA version of extreme postmodernism: in some subjects, there is such a thing of reality; in others, there isn’t, and everyone’s own truth is true for them.
Have you forgotten? The truth must always lie exactly in the middle.
Radford has made a further response, which, at least to me (who, note, have NOT been following the discussion closely at all), seems mostly reasonable. It’d be nice if PZ would add a note about this to the post, and/or make a new post pointing to it.