I am simultaneously surprised and not surprised. Michael Shermer tweeted this:
When I think of feminists I think of Inez Milholland, led 1913 march on DC, not today's fainting couchers @CHSommers https://t.co/FXwYh90SJj pic.twitter.com/tPjJgM1yYg
— Michael Shermer (@michaelshermer) December 5, 2016
Inez Milholland was a prominent suffragist, so it’s good to acknowledge her. But…
-
He’s using her to promote an article by Christina Hoff Sommers, who is about as much of a feminist as I am a Republican.
-
This article is about how it is inappropriate and weak for feminists to be dismayed about the election of Donald Trump. Don’t worry, girls, the patriarchy doesn’t exist!
-
The article ends by accusing modern feminists of being
hyperbolic and harping
. -
You know what’s just not right? To use one feminist to berate a different feminist. We can see right through you guys: your beef is with feminism, period.
-
Insulting modern feminists with slurs like
fainting couchers
is directly analogous to the insults given to the suffragettes of Milholland’s time. -
Somehow the only good feminists in some people’s minds are the feminists who died a hundred years ago.
-
It’s telling that the “good feminist” is the beautiful white woman on a white horse wearing white robes. Dead symbols are so much easier to deal with than fractious, real, complicated people.
-
The 1913 march is also known for it’s blatant segregation of black women who wanted to join in — they were sent to the back of the line. Unlike the old feminists he likes, “fainting couchers” now are intersectional.
-
Over 100 women in that march were hospitalized for injuries they received from harassing men. But Shermer accepts Sommers’ claim that there is no patriarchy, women aren’t in any way oppressed?
Just to add arsenic icing to his poison cupcake, his next tweet praises Ben Shapiro. He later declares that he disagrees with Shapiro that transgender men and women are mentally ill, but never walks back the fact that this Shapiro fellow he’s praising is also homophobic, anti-feminist, anti-Muslim, anti-abortion, and doesn’t accept global climate change. But he’s sharp! Just the kind of guy a skeptic would like!
Ewwwwwww god damn dude. Glad articles like this here are the only way in which I am reminded of Shermer’s existence anymore.
It’s telling that the “good feminist” is the beautiful white woman on a white horse wearing white robes. Dead symbols are so much easier to deal with than fractious, real, complicated people.
Yeah, but it she were alive Shermer’d like to buy her a drink and give her a copy of his book.
@Marcus and sexually assault her.
Is there such a thing as Shermerites? I hope not.
Whut? And he has something nice to say about the (no-longer) Virgin Ben? Ben (finally fucking) Shapiro?
So, it’s douchebaggery all the way!
(Kneels) Dear Jesus Christ our Lord, King of Kings, to you I give the only prayer I will ever make:
“Can we have a prominent atheist who ISN’T ten pounds of shit in a five-pound bag?”
Aww, always these reminders that I don’t get to be a prominent atheist no more. Maybe if I started using the c-word more and raging about those damned feminists?
Why, I’m sure none ever pushed back or complained about Millholland’s actions 100 years ago.
Sorry I’m late, has Shermer fucked off yet?
Shermer used to like Donald Trump (“used to” because I don’t know if he still likes him) so that tells everything about his lack of judgment. I had to disable adblock to read the article and I’m regretting doing so.
But at least I got a chuckle out of this line:
Yes, this is serious. This is an assertion that “women hold power in US” in an article that discusses the first woman who had the chance but could not win the election over a man. There is really no self-awareness. Also, who made it the definition of a patriarchy a society where men hold 100% of power and women 0%? And why is it unreasonable to call a society patriarchal if men hold significant amount of power but not say 100%?
Also, more than half of her article is how feminism does not care about fixing problems of men or helping working class men. I think she should write more articles on how gay activists are oblivious to the plights of straight white working-class men, environmentalists don’t care about the economical struggles of white working-class men, and same with doctors without borders.
Shermer is one of the reasons, not the only one by any means, why I gave up on Scientific American. I figured any magazine that would have him on the payroll must have an agenda that isn’t purely about science.
Words to live by, truly, from sceptic extraordinaire and master critical thinker, Micheal Shemer. Next he’ll remind us that racism ended with the civil war, or maybe with Obama’s election. Doesn’t matter which as long as we get to dismiss all these problems out of hand.
Speaking of “fainting couchers”, is he still suing people for accusing him of sexual assault and harrassment after commiting sexual assault and harrassment? Poor, fragile thing…
You’d think somewhere in that swelled head of his there’d be a sense of shame. A sense of “I’ve done bad things, maybe I shouldn’t keep sticking my nose into issues where my bad deeds could be pointed out again.” But, no. No shame whatsoever.
I know when I think of intellectual atheists I think of Bertrand Russell, not poseurs like Michael Shermer.
PZ, I want my money back for the conference I attended in Orange County, CA in 2008 when I was forced to sit across from Shermer at dinner while you and the cool kids were down at the other end of the table. Who should I talk to about this?
When Shermer refers to feminists as “fainting couchers”, is he making some sort of reference to some sort of preference of his for drinking with women until he can convince them that they are fainting, and that he should be allowed to lay them on a couch? These aren’t my words. They are his words. I’m just asking what he means, in case his intentions are not clear. I, for one, would not feel relaxed drinking with him. And I do consider myself to be a feminist, so it is relevant to me, even though I am not female.
Danielle Muscato.
Funny [sic] how conservatives endlessly whine about how liberals, in their minds, are just whining futiley.
hey, conservs, look in the mirror to see real whiners./pfft *spit*
It’s hilarious that they don’t realize that when they point to activist leaders from 50 (MLK, almost invariably) or 100 years ago as the models to set against current activists, they (in addition to almost always failing/refusing to recognize that those people were far more radical than they suggest) show themselves as the worst sorts of reactionaries. “I can generously accept, in 2016, that you wanted to vote or whatever, but challenging the culture and violence of white male supremacy? Know your fucking place.”* And of course they would have been among those mocking and harassing the feminists of 1913.
I think I’ve mentioned that one of my pet conspiracy theories has been that there’s been a concerted effort on the Right to co-opt and exploit a segment of the atheist-secular movement. Previously, I’d imagined this being orchestrated by the AEI and other rightwing propaganda outifits in the US and UK, but now I could almost imagine there’s a Putin angle…
* Note these examples of the AEI’s thinking about BLM and trans people’s rights.
It’s funny – she doesn’t even try to pretend to be a feminist in her article. It’s plainly criticizing feminism from the outside. Thanks for sharing, rehacktionary.
Mansplaining. Fuck you Michael Shermer.
It’s not up to you to decide that for anyone.
It’s up to every single individual.
Women voted for Hillary by 12% over Trump.
Unfortunately, this was cancelled out by 12% more men voting for Trump.
SInce Shermer vaporized his credibility years ago, I haven’t read a single word of his. Until this post I didn’t even know he was still alive. Or cared.
#14: I guess I owe you a dinner.
… black women who wanted to join in… were sent to the back of the line. … Over 100 women in that march were hospitalized for injuries they received from harassing men.
I was about to suggest a disproportionate number of that 100 came from the rear of the march – until I considered epidermal hospital-admittance criteria circa 1913.
Old skeptics never die. They are just reborn into Twitter junkies.
This is no different than claiming Martin Luther King would have been against Black Lives Matter. The only civil rights crusaders conservatives like are dead ones, because they can no longer contradict conservatives who claim they would be in favor of the status quo.
Those cartoons mocking sufraggists… The parallels with today’s MRA rhetoric is striking. It is sad to see that so many do not seem to have come any further even after a century. The technology is different, but the mean-spirited obtuseness is the same.
all you need to know about Sommers:
“I liked Carly Fiorina”
http://www.gameobjective.com/2016/12/06/christina-hoff-sommers-conservative-definitive-interview/
end of.
she’s a complete tosser, and always has been.
Can someone explain why this guy merits reacting to? His books were shit and, obviously, his politics are shit.
Another example of how “mainstream atheism” is really just another good ole boys club.
Bruce
My thought exactly. When Shermer uses the words “fainting” in connection with “women” it’s ugly already.
Also, could they decide if we are fainting or the shrill outrage machine? Last I looked those things were mutually exclusive…
He might just as well have Twittered “Geez, ladies, we let you vote! What more do you want?”
Especially when he has explicitly written: Rational atheism values the truths of science and the power of reason, but the principle of freedom stands above both science and religion.
I don’t care to what extent my political ideology might agree with his; science should not be subservient to politics. What an idiotic thing to have written.
Might as well use this venue repeat my favorite Shermer story:
In Why People Believe Weird Things, first edition hardcover, page 83 Shermer wrote:
This was altered or removed in later editions. A couple months ago I found a first edition copy and sent it to PZ. I presume that he received it.
Yes, I did receive it! It now holds a place of honor on my shelf of crank literature.
Oh! Conservatives and MLK! My favourite co-opting of MLK is whiny white guys bringing out “the content of their character” when people start talking about white guys being over-represented in media.
Pascal’s Pager #27:
He merits a reaction because his targets are worthy of defense and support. He merits a reaction because he has a gleeful audience who needs to know they will receive push back for their behavior. He merits a reaction because, surprisingly, ignoring problems does not make those problems go away.