Wow. You’ve probably heard about the Harvard men’s soccer team scandal — they’ve been compiling a yearly “scouting report” of the women’s soccer team, rating each team member’s appearance and speculating about their sexual preferences and other such juvenile shit. They ought to be deeply embarrassed. Their team has been suspended, which is an appropriate step, although if it keeps up it ought to be just completely shut down, but I doubt that the boys who thought such nonsense was funny are at all ashamed.
But then you need to read the response by Kelsey Clayman, Brooke Dickens, Alika Keene, Emily Mosbacher, Lauren Varela, and Haley Washburn, members of the women’s soccer team. The boys write like a puerile gang of inflamed testicles, the women write like thoughtful and intelligent human beings.
The sad reality is that we have come to expect this kind of behavior from so many men, that it is so “normal” to us we often decide it is not worth our time or effort to dwell on. Yet as the media has taken advantage of the Harvard name once more, it has become increasingly difficult to evade the pervasiveness of this story, harder still to elude the abhorrent judgment of our peers and the outrageous Internet commentary of the public, and hardest to subdue the embarrassment, disgust, and pain we feel as a result.
In all, we do not pity ourselves, nor do we ache most because of the personal nature of this attack. More than anything, we are frustrated that this is a reality that all women have faced in the past and will continue to face throughout their lives. We feel hopeless because men who are supposed to be our brothers degrade us like this. We are appalled that female athletes who are told to feel empowered and proud of their abilities are so regularly reduced to a physical appearance. We are distraught that mothers having daughters almost a half century after getting equal rights have to worry about men’s entitlement to bodies that aren’t theirs. We are concerned for the future, because we know that the only way we can truly move past this culture is for the very men who perpetrate it to stop it in its tracks.
Having considered members of this team our close friends for the past four years, we are beyond hurt to realize these individuals could encourage, silently observe, or participate in this kind of behavior, and for more than four years have neglected to apologize until this week.
I know who impresses me and who disappoints me, and it’s a shame the difference falls along such strong gender lines.
What also worries me is that I read this satirical (?) article on McSweeney’s right after that, and you know, it sounded less like satire and more like a really good idea.
The Constitution? Yeah, we’re done with that. We’ve enlisted a group of multi-racial women, The Founding Mothers, to draft a new document, The Socialist Mixtape, which will become the law of the land. We’re only going to let non-white, low-income women vote for the first 150 years or so — just until things settle down enough to let white men have a say.
Right now, if it were announced that the US was going to disenfranchise all white men (which includes me) until they learn a little intellectual maturity as a group, I wouldn’t be too horrified. I’d at least regard it as an idea that might have some merit. I’d worry more that it was a proposal that was going to anger the largest bloc of armed assholes in America.
I’m more optimistic – I think 50 years would do the trick.
BUt I have it on good authority from the eminent feminist scholar C.H. Sommers* that this is part of a war on boys”
*no, I didn’t write that with a straight face
The Harvard men’s soccer team are following the lead of adults: Donald Trump, Roger Ailes, Newt Gingrich . . . .
Between this and the incident at the university in Alabama, the daily routine seems to continue. Cultural and social values are to be taken through American lenses, and how Americans behave is the golden standard, every other subject of analysis is in comparison to local findings. In other words, if America were in the Arctics where the Sun never sets for months, only goes in a seemingly circular motion centered around one spot, they’d say the Earth doesn’t rotate around the Sun as there is no cross horizontal motion.
More wiser people should figuratively hammer in the idea, that no initial response toward a minority or any response given to the reaction based on said response shall be based on the preconceived notion that everyone everywhere acts the same way they do. Similarly no reaction to such juvenile actions shall be phrased in that manner.
I’m not blameless, I left a very xenophobic, misogynist, homophobic, socially conservative society, and contrary to my childhood dreams that’s also why I don’t move to America either. Call me Eurocentric, but I do like to address people with the level of respect I wish they give me in return. I can do that here without being harassed for it.
Not that it exonerates them, but possibly their status as soccer players, a sport frowned upon in the US (yes, we can’t use our hands on the field, but we also don’t get concussions that kill us) motivated them to elevate their standing by dragging down others, a culturanthropological phenomenon where smaller tribes within the empire shun the other small tribe to gain favors with the leader tribe.
Unsurprisingly, this “satirical” piece also seems to be a typical example of American exceptionalism, where argumentation begins from one of the both deep ends and pretty much stays there without having a dialogue. At least that’s what I experienced when I debated Neo Marxists and anarchosyndicalist capitalists at the same time, a joy I wish on noone as most of the time they analyzed the whole world like how it works in America and refuted well acknowledged facts when it didn’t fit their narrative.
The problem isn’t men or white people, it’s what society ignores is happening or allows it to happen. Most ironically much of these conservative values they look up to also come from the French Enlightenment, nationalism and equal rights for all men being one.
I feel empathy for CH Sommers, but not agreement. It’s powerful to say “You go girl” and “Anything you can do I can do better” and “girl power”. But, at the end of the day, no matter how strong you are, for whatever definition of strong you can conjure out of the air, you are going to have to rely on someone. At some point going to have to rely on someone. You are going to be a victim of circumstances beyond your control. You are going to fail. You are going to be a cog, a hiccup in a large machine. And that it is absolutely opposed to an American philosophy of complete self-determination and individualism. It feels empowering to say you can stand against sexists, and diminishing to say that others have to change for you to get ahead. That’s why “victimization” is the go-to insult for anti-feminists and anti-racist; it is an insult to say you that others can harm you. And the more privileged you are, the more you can pretend you did it all by yourself, with all that invisible labor done by somebody else.
Screw that. Sometimes there are systems that are broken, and the best way you can stand up to it is say YOU need to change, not me. My behavior did not warrant this, I do not need thicker skin- you need to be less of an ass.
@secondtofirstworld #4
Science would disagree with you, though there are fewer problems for footballers (as I’m sure you call soccer players when out IRL): http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/cost-header
I much prefer soccer, but it’s not the safe sport many believe. I will still play it til the end of my days, though. I might avoid headers when possible.
I personally believe that equal rights for all is an admirable goal. I’m not sure what you’re saying in regards to that. However, I agree that the problem isn’t men or white people, but, when living in the US, the vast majority of people (that I’ve encountered, anyway) that hold those conservative ideas are men and white people. I myself am a white man who doesn’t hold those ideas, but I have met many others that do. We do need a shift in society, and disenfranchising white men for a while may just help fix it. Nobody is seriously saying we should do that, though. It’s satire for a reason.
I think low-income white women and middle-class colored women should have a say as well, though. I may be misguided in that.
Nah, pretty sure it’s just that they’re a bunch of entitled shitbags who’ve spent their lives being told that this is an appropriate way to behave towards women. It’s not as if it’s only soccer players who behave this way.
I’m also not sure what you mean when you talk about everything being seen through an American lense; PZ is an American, talking about events in America. There’s nothing actually wrong with that, and I can’t see anything in his post that suggests he’s unreasonably extending his comments to other countries
@methuseus@jefrir
I grew up in a highly xenophobic, homophobic and very sexist society. Irreverent of the political and economical systems, major religions are built on social conservativism, and in turn enforce them, and the more akin a society is to held beliefs not based in science the more it will discriminate between its individuals. When I say the problem isn’t white people and men, I mean it’s not innate in anybody to be discriminating toward anybody, it’s what society allows happening or ignores it’s happening. For example Uganda’s anti-LGBT laws were drafted up by Americans who could legally push their agenda further, in a form of a hate export. Yet, behind this hate export is the belief, that no matter who you are and where you live, people behave and act the same way as you experienced in your own surroundings.
The cardinal difference between European and American white people is we didn’t occupy Wall Street, but each other and thus have differing views and nationalities. In the eyes of discriminated people differences among American whites seem distinctive to the point of irrelevance, even though the Civil Rights Act fortunately prohibits signs, like Irish need not apply from popping up again. I was also unintentionally vague about sports injuries. What I meant to say was, unlike North American leagues, soccer does take doping, match fixing and injury seriously.
Instead of disenfranchising, my support goes to both keeping civil rights laws in letter and in spirit intact and to expand it to minorities not yet covered. Being juvenile and rude to women isn’t unique, but arguing against adopting policies from other countries based on American exceptionalism is. If it is factually true, that the Department of Labor does calculate all jobs from every sector and breaks it down on gender, than that is a stupid system. The reason why women are being treated and paid worse than men is because the society is socially conservative. MRAs know this, because they like to attack (not without merit) the system of alimony for wives, virtually unknown outside the English law and its derivatives. The problem is consciously aiming the blame at the wrong people. Conservatives pay women less because they have financial support for them (without asking anyone) while married and in the form of alimony after being married, and no politician was elected to repea
@methuseus@jefrir
I grew up in a highly xenophobic, homophobic and very sexist society. Irreverent of the political and economical systems, major religions are built on social conservativism, and in turn enforce them, and the more akin a society is to held beliefs not based in science the more it will discriminate between its individuals. When I say the problem isn’t white people and men, I mean it’s not innate in anybody to be discriminating toward anybody, it’s what society allows happening or ignores it’s happening. For example Uganda’s anti-LGBT laws were drafted up by Americans who could legally push their agenda further, in a form of a hate export. Yet, behind this hate export is the belief, that no matter who you are and where you live, people behave and act the same way as you experienced in your own surroundings.
The cardinal difference between European and American white people is we didn’t occupy Wall Street, but each other and thus have differing views and nationalities. In the eyes of discriminated people differences among American whites seem distinctive to the point of irrelevance, even though the Civil Rights Act fortunately prohibits signs, like Irish need not apply from popping up again. I was also unintentionally vague about sports injuries. What I meant to say was, unlike North American leagues, soccer does take doping, match fixing and injury seriously.
Instead of disenfranchising, my support goes to both keeping civil rights laws in letter and in spirit intact and to expand it to minorities not yet covered. Being juvenile and rude to women isn’t unique, but arguing against adopting policies from other countries based on American exceptionalism is. If it is factually true, that the Department of Labor does calculate all jobs from every sector and breaks it down on gender, than that is a stupid system. The reason why women are being treated and paid worse than men is because the society is socially conservative. MRAs know this, because they like to attack (not without merit) the system of alimony for wives, virtually unknown outside the English law and its derivatives. The problem is consciously aiming the blame at the wrong people. Conservatives pay women less because they have financial support for them (without asking anyone) while married and in the form of alimony after being married, and no politician was elected to repeal such laws. The other thing is bearing children is somehow the mother’s fault for falling out of the workforce. What such accusers ignore is, that in various ways, save for 2 countries, every nation provides paid maternal or parental leave. One of that country is yours, and these accusers pretend to be deaf when explained that not yet mother women pay dividends into social security which covers their future pregnancy in a system based on equal solidarity.
People fail to see systemic acts because they think individualism has no upper limit, even though French Enlightenment philosophers like Rousseau were vary of the fact. I’m aware that in the English translation his book is called the Social Contract, but in our language it’s a Contract with society, there’s a huge difference. These guys feel their social contract only extend to people they know, therefore anybody else is free game. Perhaps I’m wrong but I seem to see only people who think the ideas the Founding Fathers put on paper was their invention. It wasn’t. Sure, they were a product of their time, as was Rousseau, but their ideals still are universal and at no point has any of them made a declaration it only applies to white men (well, except for restricting voting rights to landowners).
As a product of my environment, I was a social conservative, and had plenty of preconceived notions without actually meeting people it affects, something that happens in any country that has one predominant ethnicity. So, disenfranchising people is just fighting fire with fire, and circles back to what I said on positioning yourself on one deep end of an argument’s spectrum and conduct a war of attrition. The greatest current conservative hypocrisy is that liberal ideas destroy a nation, except before the French Enlightenment, there was no nationalism (the church thought loving your country more than god is heresy) no suffrage for men (climbing up the ladder happened on title, not merit) no marriages based on love (they thought it’s lunacy, and marriage is a business between 2 fathers) no gun ownership (based on frequent uprising against royalty), so on and so forth.
There is no tradition which “has been always like that and remains so” as most of our ancestors were not part of it. The main hardship of American freethinkers is, as I said above, that their detractors think every person in the world acts and behaves the way they think they do. The only thing we have in common with them is being white. Sure, PZ is American, but if you only mount local examples as your defense they will remain on the position that you complain about something that isn’t as bad, and other places actually oppress women. The problem with that statement is, that women in socially liberal societies enjoy more rights, than American women. I should rephrase that, they have less rights taken away, not the same thing, some advocates misconstrue that. I’d freak out if and when I do get married my wife would have a mandatory ultrasound to be eligible for pregnancy termination based on the I get up in your business act, that exists in 32 states. Perhaps preemptively I should invite them all to the wedding as apparently we are so close.
It boils down to people living alongside others, not with them. Where this problem is prevalent, combined with enough abandonment, the recipe for riots is ready. If you compare all societies with one predominant ethnicity, and exclude dictatorships (as societal anger being oppressed is a given) you’ll see not all societies have to deal with rebellious discontent.
secondtofirstworld, you do know that the suggestion to disenfranchise men was a joke, right? No-one is actually proposing we do that.
The rest of your comments is largely confusing, and only vaguely related to the topic at hand. Could you state your point more briefly, because I’m having real difficulty following what you’re trying to say
@jefrir:
Pardon my previous perception, I’ve gotten to accustomed to YouTube and Reddit comment and sometimes I don’t get the joke.
The male soccer team acted like the way they did, because they aren’t confronted on why that is wrong, which is one façet of a socially conservative society. In relation to that, I’ve assessed, that both these actions, and sometimes the reaction given to it come from the extremist arm of a viewpoint, and treating it locally won’t change their minds. I said that what social conservatives claim is a natural order, actually come from French Enlightenment philosophy. Would we do away with, Harvard would still have a soccer, except only blue bloods could attend and we could peak at conversations like this, because most of us couldn’t learn comprehensive reading and abstract thinking.
It’s not as simple as a group of men acting like kids. It’s also not just about women. It’s also about individuality having its limits (especially evident in group behavior) and respecting one’s individuality, and about taking part in local elections so that backwards thinking people won’t uphold laws that discriminate between people.
Secondtofirstworld.
It’s not just women who get paid less. Black and Latino men get paid less than women. And the figures for women include black and Latino women, who get paid a lot less than white women.
@robertbaden:
This is yet another façet, albeit for a different reason. When the argument is being made, that some earn more, because they do more dangerous jobs, said argument omits 2 facts: for one, many dangerous jobs, since automation became viable and safe, is being done by robots, and wherever that’s not possible, said jobs are being done by people, who can be paid less and can’t complain about working conditions (like illegal immigrants). The second part is, high finance jobs and elected officials in governments earn more, than people doing dangerous jobs, a sector which includes women.
Still, the guiding principle is the same, irreverent of the state of the economy, the powers that be still pretend it’s still the ’60s, and only daddy needs to work, mommy can be a homemaker, José is the gardener, and Leshawn picks up the garbage. No actual economic reason supports this, but comfort and perceived tradition, one that isn’t older, than half a century, yet people still like to pretend it has always been that way.
That’s why I said that this juvenile behavior exists in this context. Some tutors can make up to 200 hundred thousands a year by preparing rich kids to get into prestigious places, like the Ivy League, and said kids (which involves both gender, and to an extent, ethnicities) can get into these places from gated communities, apartment complexes with doormen or the suburbia to an environment, that doesn’t check which behavior is acceptable. When I read this, I was reminded of a clip John Oliver had shown about college behavior, in which on Yale a group of guys shouted “No means yes, and yes means *nal!” It’s no wonder, that a system, which is before a reform of making anatomically correct, comprehensive sexual education nationwide has problems with consent, prevention of VDs, or even social behavior.
I think, if I recall correctly, atheists like to point out the usage of circumferential reasoning (like, the Bible is true, because the Bible says it’s true). This isn’t any different, since policies and laws enforcing discrimination is based on voters electing officials coming from communities that condone such behavior, and said behavior is condoned, because the laws say so. Seems to me, Civil Rights Act or not, the reasoning for the conditions before it remains the same.
@secondtofirstworld, throughout
What is this non-sequitur trying to say, exactly?
So what’s the explanation for footballers behaving badly in countries where football is king?
Women aren’t, by definition, wives. And as for that bit of piffle about women being the beneficiaries of conservative “financial support” (whatever that means) as an explanation for the wage gap: a big, fat NOPE with bells on.
Utterly incorrect.
They’ve been banned from playing this season as a result of their behavior. That’s quite literally them being “confronted on why that is wrong.”
Where are women of color in this calculus? Working class women? Why is “daddy” being characterized as “working” but José — equally likely to be a “daddy” — not? Women have never just been “homemakers” and the idealized nuclear family is of recent, somewhat dubious, vintage and never described the majority of any American household at any given time.
@snuffcurry
On your first question, my answer is: It means, being able to befriend and respect anyone without being publicly shunned for it, which includes the other participants as well. I’ve yet to encounter a majority here, who don’t tell people they should find work instead of being angry, that they should smile more, that they should idolize a certain body image, or abandon the idea, that they’re not heterosexual or are transsexual. Back home I’ve seen examples of branding LGBT-issues as misguided feminism, gender craziness brought on by liberals to support an in their eyes made up condition, that the future of women isn’t in danger because they just marry off and their husband cares for them, that childcare is the mother’s sole responsibility. Not that liberals are any better. I’ve read comments under an article concerning Theresa May, and instead of disagreeing with any of her policies (or her flip flopping on Brexit) they went into a tirade on her hairstyle, her wrinkles and body image. Take note, none of that happens, when it comes to a man, who’re being called loony or a thief. In a nutshell a socially conservative culture.
I’d like some clarification on your second question as I’m not aware of any such scandals where football is a dominant sport. I’ve seen corruption, match fixing, brute behavior on the field (that carries heavy suspension), racism (again, it’s heavily fined, and gets less common the more westward you go), and there’s football hooliganism, which is a problem, but isn’t a player activity, especially since even if “supporters” are being banned, the one losing financially is the team or the association or both.
On your third and fourth remark: I wasn’t wrong, the institution of alimony isn’t known outside the English law and other judicial systems that are related to or are derived from it. Prenuptial agreements can contain wife support in other countries which affect those who can afford it, but it isn’t a system affecting everyone. The system I’m talking about, is. Furthermore, there’s no disagreement between us on women not being born as wives, yet before the Civil Rights Act and the no-fault divorce, women were paid less (any woman) on the merit that by tradition they marry and whoever doesn’t is a spinster, a somewhat nicer word for a crazy person. Sure, coverture was abolished, and alimony should have been as well, yet it stayed, and in Texas an ex-husband has to pay even if he doesn’t have a job and the ex-wife doesn’t want and need the money. As the saying goes, old habits die hard. A similar old habit is to pay less to non-white people. I hope there’s disagreement between us on the fact, that acts can be illegal as long as you don’t inform your employee that what you’re doing is actually illegal. As for the GOP in unison with religious leaders do make attempts to make the lives of people harder, who they don’t like or presuppose would not vote for them is not my brainchild. It is a fact, that seven states bar non-religious people from holding office. It’s also a fact only 22 states have mandatory sexual education, but only 13 of those states do it in anatomically correct way. 32 states require a mandatory ultrasound before pregnancy termination, some even direct patients to pro-life doctors who’re under no legal obligation to disclose actual medical information on risks and benefits. It’s a fact, that a recently struck down law wanted to put pro-choice clinics with unnecessary regulations out of business, so that those who need it either give up or cross state’s lines in which case beside the cost of the procedure, there would have been the additional costs of travel and lodging in the thousands of dollars. When one method becomes illegal they come up with the next to fit their deeply held religious beliefs. Now, many stepping out of those cultures and become agnostic or full atheist, may and in cases still do carry these cultural incentives. On top of that all, capitalism is about making profit. As such, they’re in the business in paying as little as affordable. Where the education system is based on property taxes, and those living in poor conditions get poor education can hardly climb the latter without acquiring the necessary qualifications. It’s not illegal to use the relics of racial and sexual segregation or the housing situation. Lastly, when applying, yet another thing that isn’t illegal, HR can claim that the position has been filled in-house. One can’t sue for not being hired, when the company can prove it has actually filled the position or terminated it altogether as it’s economic, not a social decision. BS, unethical, but not illegal.
Being benched for one season under normal circumstances would, and I agree, would truly mean they’re being held responsible. Instead what will happen is, or very likely to happen is that the case will be linked to the infamous UVA case as further proof how in their eyes acceptable behavior is being dragged through the mud by the uber-PC SJW community.
As for your last paragraph: We absolutely agree on the fact, that the idealized nuclear family never existed. However, that doesn’t stop people like Rubio or politicians like him in other countries in calling a free divorce (free in the sense of not needing to prove fault of either party) a plague on society. Women of color and working class women gained legal rights with the Civil Rights Act and even then by hubris, because one or some representatives were sure if they include women, not even liberals would vote for it. Yes, the gardener, the garbage man, the welder are all working dads… to us, not to them at the time, heck not to even some today, when a certain someone calls the relatives of some Americans rapists, who bring in crime and probably some of them are good. Donald stands for this ideal, not just now, his first ex-wife was caught on tape saying similar things on the same subject back in 2009.
If I were completely wrong, and just one party had those ideals, I’d concede to it. Yet, the fact that school segregation is stronger north of the Mason-Dixon line, that even some libertarians absolute love of freedom ends when it comes to women/religion/minorities, that some well-known/infamous (depending on your point of view) atheists denigrate women and minorities shows it’s by far not a Southern, not a religious, not a socially conservative problem, because the officials keeping such laws and policies alive couldn’t win on the voter base alone that existed under Nixon. This is why I was saying, that even though they play soccer, these kids wished to show they’re still jocks and earn the respect of other jocks who mock and ridicule football. Under today’s circumstances, sadly so, they’ve won, even if they got suspended, because in a few weeks this story will submerge into the foxhole as being an example of who the actual victims are.