Leaders stand up for what is right

Wow, Australia, are you trying to shame the US by example or what? While rape is endemic in our military, and old greyheads waffle about in committees avoiding stating anything clearly about the problem, look at Lieutenant General David Morrison of the Australian army laying down the law.

Yes. The time is long past due to recognize that equality by race and sex and sexual orientation is a moral obligation. I commend Morrison for being at least one man who stands up for that obligation.

But what about us? Rebecca Watson is exactly right.

Recently, I’ve been discussing and sometimes arguing with friends about the current state of the skeptic and atheist communities. It is my firm belief that we are, as a “movement,” cowardly, and that is why we ultimately will fail. There are too many of us, and especially too many people in positions of power, who are unwilling or unable to take any real action that might help stop the incessant harassment of women in our ranks, or to take any other real moral stand. I’ve seen people who think of themselves as allies actively covering up sexual harassment at an event and then going on to invite the harasser back to speak. I’ve seen “skeptics” write blog posts defending Brian Dunning as a hero instead of an embarrassment. I’ve seen organization employees privately rage about the nonsense their boss is spewing but then refuse to even try to hold him accountable. If we’re going to get anywhere, we have to demand better. We need leaders who are more like Lt. Gen. Morrison.

I feel that American leadership in a lot of domains has been crippled by that Clintonian disease of triangulation — straining to find a position that accommodates a maximum number without regard to truth or moral status. That’s a dangerous approach when the majority is not moral, and often, not even right.

Knowing a little history clarifies issues

We’ve had this long-simmering football controversy here in the upper midwest — a North Dakota football team named itself after an Indian tribe. They try to argue that it’s not racist and claim that it’s a respectful homage to the natives, but look at the history of such naming elsewhere: the Washington DC football team name is unabashedly racist.

This Washington football team was named by one of the most vehement racists in the history of American professional sports. When George Marshall bought the team in 1932, they were called the Boston Braves. He changed the name — to a slur, because he was a racist — and moved them to Washington. He made “Dixie” one of the team’s fight songs and refused to hire black players well into the 1960s. The NFL integrated in 1946 but Marshall’s team held out until the federal government actually forced them to field black players in 1963. The all-white Washington teams of the 1950s and 1960s were among the worst in the league, but segregation was more important to Marshall than winning football games. The NFL had actually already been raciallyintegrated until black players were suddenly banned in 1933. Interviews with owners suggest that Marshall was responsible for the ban.

This is the man who named the team and white supremacy and racism obviously informed his every decision. In his will he insisted that his foundation not spend any money on “any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form.” It is extremely hard to believe that this man selected the name — specially changed the name from a less offensive term for American Indians to this term — to “honor” anyone, the usual argument used by the team’s modern defenders.

The current owner has vowed to never change the name, and is desperately working to build up some PR spin to cover his butt. So what does he do?

The Washington DC-area NFL franchise has commissioned veteran Republican pollster Frank Luntz to conduct some focus groups to see how American football fans feel about the franchise’s name, which is a vile racial slur.

Oh, yeah. When you want to whitewash racism, you call the professionals: a Republican apparatchik. Everyone knows that.

If you read some of the linked articles, you’ll discover that one of the reasons the team refuses to change their name is that they did a poll…and found that Americans preferred that they keep their racist name, 9:1. Are we at all surprised? And is it any wonder that they’ve now hired a Republican pollster to skew the bias even more?

I notice Mal Brough is rather flat-chested himself

OK, Australians, help me out here — I’m always getting confused by your political parties. Here in the US, the word “liberal” is strongly associated with the political left and progressive politics. Elsewhere in the world, it’s not: the Australian Liberal party refers to classical liberalism, which is actually center-right, rather conservative politics, right? And they’re in a coalition with the National Party, which is predominantly rural and conservative? I get so tangled up trying to sort these things out.

Aww, screw it. Let’s just identify them as the misogynist jerkwad party. It seems they have a unique way of sniping at the Labor Party (center left, ja? Like our Democrats?) which involves printing up sexist dinner menus.

The menu was presented at a dinner for former minister and Liberal National Party election candidate Mal Brough.

It offered up "Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Quail – Small Breasts, Huge Thighs and a Big Red Box".

Charming. Well, they just lost my vote, if ever I emigrated to Australia.

Dublin, 29-30 June!

In a bit more than two weeks, it’ll be time for the Empowering Women Through Secularism conference in Dublin. It’s going to be excellent, you should go!

I know there has been some concern that Michael Nugent has been enabling certain abusers to mouth off, but as Ophelia mentions, we’ve been talking about it behind the scenes. We haven’t resolved all of our differences by a long shot, and there are still some substantial disagreements, but, and this is an important point of agreement, none of those differences are to be the subject of the conference, which is going to be tightly focused on women’s rights. We might be having some interesting arguments in the bar afterwards, but none of that will be on the podium.

Also, don’t forget that the conference is the work of Atheist Ireland and the always awesome Jane Donnelly, not just Michael Nugent. When Ophelia says now that she has much more confidence in the work of the conference, she has good reason. It think it’s going to be very productive and successful.

One other interesting observation. You may notice that there are men listed as speakers, including me. I think this is appropriate, since women’s issues should also be men’s issues (and vice versa). However, women clearly have priority here — and the way it’s going to work is that the men will be sprinkled throughout to provide that complementary male perspective, but in every case, women will be in the majority on all of the panels. We guys will be very careful not to talk over the women or to launch into mansplaining mode, I hope. The audience can be encouraged to fling rotten fruit at us if we do.

So if you’ve been waffling over whether to go, be reassured. It’s going to be good.

Oh, and if you’re stuck in the midwest and flying across the Atlantic is just a journey too far, don’t forget SkepchickCon, the skeptic track at CONvergence, is the weekend after Dublin. You’ll also be entertained by the spectacle of Rebecca Watson and me stumbling about jet-lagged from our European excursion.

Congratulations to Norway!

Today is a significant anniversary: the Stemmerettsjubileet, or women’s suffrage centenary.

On 11 June 2013 it will be 100 years since Norwegian women gained the right to vote and Norway became a true democracy. Norway was the first independent country in the world to introduce universal suffrage, with women and men enjoying equal democratic rights.

It’s amazing that it’s only been a century — I can’t imagine the injustice of depriving women of the right to vote.

I know some representatives of other countries who comment here will be quick to complain that Norway wasn’t the very first—but they’ve got that covered.

Globally, Norway was a universal suffrage pioneer. It is true that three countries had already introduced universal suffrage – New Zealand in 1893, Australia in 1902 and Finland in 1906 – but they were not independent states at the time. Norway was the first sovereign state to extend the vote to all adults. The right to vote gave women a formal foundation on which to participate in democratic bodies on an equal footing with men.

You’re all pioneers, OK? Clearly there was a wave of suffrage that swept around the world at roughly the turn of the last century.

But this goes too far.

A cause championed since the French Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment had finally been won.

“Won”? Keep in mind that Ann Coulter is promoting the revocation of women’s suffrage, it’s easy to find other cranks creating petitions to repeal the 19th amendment, and it’s a common talking point on the far right. I wish the Enlightenment were won.

Maybe it’s just the United States that’s trying to roll it back.

No surprises anywhere

So Microsoft released some fancy new gaming console, and showed off a bunch of games on it. Unfortunately, as Anita Sarkeesian noted, there was a casual omission.

Thanks #XboxOne #E3 press conference for revealing to us exactly zero games featuring a female protagonist for the next generation.

Oh, that’s an interesting factual observation. But go read further and notice how the mob of gentlemen responded.

Who would have thought that accurately describing reality would inspire such rage? By now, I think all of us.

Adam Lee reads things so you don’t have to

That poor fellow. He’s reading Atlas Shrugged, which is awful enough, but now he’s also reading homophobic literature about The Harms of Same-Sex Marriage. Massachusetts has had same-sex marriage for a decade, so you’d think we’d now have some solid data on the ghastly consequences … so I appreciate the anti-gay-marriage groups now taking their very best shot with real information.

Their list of terrible outcomes is simply pathetic.

Children are being told that families with same-sex parents are just another kind of family! Lawyers have to learn about marriage law that includes gay people! Homosexuals are allowed to adopt children! Gay people are criticizing ex-gay therapy!

If that’s the worst stuff that can happen if we allow gays to marry, I say bring it on.

No, no, no…not philosophers too!

You’d think if there was any area of human endeavor that was least likely to be full of absurd sexual drama and thoughtless harassment, it would be philosophy. Don’t those people sit around thinking ponderously about ethics and moral behavior and living the life of the mind all the time?* But no, it’s all booze and animal lusts for them, too, just like the rest of us.

The crux of this story is that Colin McGinn, a very well known philosopher, was sliming one of his own graduate students with salacious email (pdf), making remarks about masturbating while thinking about her, etc. McGinn’s own defense does him no favors; and now he’s claiming that women support him in email, because they’re so much more sensitive than men. Advances towards a student are simply unacceptable, no matter how much McGinn wants to pretend it was simply friendly banter. McGinn’s own defenders aren’t helping, either.

Professor Erwin goes on:

“There was some sexual talk, banter, puns, and jokes made between the two,”  Mr. Erwin said. “The written records, I believe, show that this was an entirely consensual relationship.” 

No, no. That is not how it works. It is remarkable how profoundly this misunderstands the student/professor relationship. A professor’s relationships with his or her students are not “entirely consensual” like that. Student/professor relationships inherently have a highly unequal balance of power. That includes students in one’s undergraduate and graduate classes, obviously, but it also includes teaching- and research assistants; academic advisees; people whose thesis or dissertation committees one sits on; exam proctors; everyone. Everyone. Anything a student says or writes to a professor has to be seen in that light. Suppose the professor engages in sexual banter and the student banters back. Maybe that’s because she consented and wanted to banter, but maybe it’s because the power differential inherent in the relationship placed her in a position of duress, in which she felt like she had to banter or face unpleasant consequences. If the return banter was performed unwillingly or under duress, there is no reason to think that the written records will reveal it.

But wait, that isn’t the worst of it. On blogs and on twitter, all over the place, bad philosophy is being done.

I take it as a mark of how deeply messed up the moral compass of professional philosophy is that there are commenters at some of the blogs linked above who seem willing to go to the mat to argue that there may be conditions in which it is acceptable to email your RA you that were thinking about her during your hand-job. Because personal interactions are hard, y’all! And power-gradients in graduate programs that are at once educational environments and workplaces are really very insignificant compared to what the flesh wants! Or something.

Read some of the dumbest things clueless people are uttering in McGinn’s defense.

OK, the communities of atheists, science-fiction writers, gamers, scholars of literature, skepticism, politics, and philosophers are rife with sexist scumbags. Is there any small part of the human community that is untainted? Do I need to start hanging out with polyamorous left-handed fly-tying hobbyists or something?

*The pdf linked above also cites something I did not know.

Complaints of sexist remarks and behavior have long plagued the field of philosophy, which has been dominated by men for years. More than 80 percent of full-time faculty members in philosophy are male, compared with just 60 percent for the professoriate as a whole, according to 2003 data compiled by the U.S. Education Department, the latest available.