I love you, barmaid
Hee! The latest Jesus and Mo cartoon is spot-on and hilarious:
If you’re not familiar with Jesus and Mo, do check it out. It’s wonderfully brilliant and witty. ♥
122 Comments
Post a comment
RSS:
-
-
-
Flickr Photos
More Photos Currently Reading
No data found
Wonderful satire! THANK YOU, Miranda! With a bit of a beard trim, I can visualize…. ;-P
;-P Indeed!
You’ve got to love those glases that Moses is sporting in the last frame. What can they mean??!!
lol
Funny Because It’s True.
ROFL
Who knew the barmaid was a ‘gender traitor’?
Thanks for the link Miranda.
I think Moses is a surrogate here for another glasses-wearing male who speaks for all TRUE feminists.
Has PZ made a spectacle of himself?
It’s a great comic. I think it captures the essence of this whole schism.
Thanks, Jerry, but I think you can assume that John Yates’s question was rhetorical in nature. We got it.
PZ is such an open-minded good sport; I’m sure he’ll post this cartoon on his website. After all, he now says that he would be glad to host intelligent discussions on this topic, as long as they’re respectful of women. As an example of this, over at erv, PZ, has explained to Abby that she doesn’t really mean what she says when she criticizes him; she’s just had her “emotional triggers activated” by this discussion. I’m sure Abby didn’t find that remark at all condescending or exemplary of “mansplaining.”
You just do get it!
Sorry about misspelling Abbie’s name in the last post. Brainfart…
PZ also called me a barefaced liar for giving my take on it. He’s obviously open to reasonable dissent.
One might have thought that some fashion of professional decorum might have restrained him from so doing ― considering that the both of you shared the stage at the hitherto largest ever official gathering of atheists on the planet, vis: The Global Atheist Conference 2010 in Melbourne.
Has he forgotten this, for some reason, or is it simply not relevant to his specific agendum? (Rhetorical)
Can you give us a link to your piece that got that lovely measured response from PZ, Russell? I didn’t see it at Metamagician, but perhaps I missed it.
I can’t imagine anything you wrote generating such a splenetic response from any reasonable person. I remember when you wrote a critical response to “The Moral Landscape” that Sam Harris, who can be very prickly when criticized, cited you as penning one of the best critiques of his work. I find your take on issues always thought-provoking and worth reading, whether I agree or disagree with you.
It was a comment I made at Butterflies and Wheels that got the response from PZ Myers – which was on the long thread on Abbie’s blog. You can see Myers’ comment at #175 and my comment that he describes as a lie is linked to earlier on the thread at #169. That’s probably the easiest way I can send you off to track it down if you can be bothered.
As I’ve said elsewhere, you’re not a liar if you have a difference of interpretation of events. I happen to think that my interpretation of events is correct, but even if it’s not that does not make it a lie or me a liar. I’m very angry about this. I may be many things, but one thing I am not is a liar.
By the long thread on Abbie’s blog I mean this one: http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/07/dawkins_coup_de_grace_in_vegas.php
Thanks, Russell, found it.
I’m starting to wonder whether PZ has lost his mind, perhaps going mad with imagined power. Of course, reasonable people can disagree about what the key issue is and where things started to get ugly (for what it’s worth, I think your take on this is spot-on), but to flatly call you a barefaced liar just because you have a different take on this from PZ is frothing-at-the-mouth viciously crazy.
My money on who lost his mind over this would have to be on the person who considers the term “sniffing smelly skepchick snatch” evidence of clear-headedness.
If these sexually charged insults are as harmful as has been argued, what is to be gained by pasting them all over blogs where they aren’t used?
I think a lot of people have lost their minds, and I certainly do include some of the people attacking Watson, especially the ones who now insist on calling her “Twatson” over and over just to bait people.
Really, Watson’s original video wasn’t that bad – it was a bit OTT (we’re talking about an invitation to converse over coffee, dammit), but she kind of had a point there somewhere in the vicinity. Elevatorguy was evidently intrusive, presumptuous, and faux-entitled … possibly even “creepy” depending on what that means (which I’m now unsure about as a result of this controversy).
But some of the people attacking Watson AND some of the people defending her seem to have taken crazy pills. Some of the folks defending her are saying things that are far more OTT than anything she said in the original video … and the Jesus and Mo artist is spot-on in his satire of them.
And what can possibly justify calling me a barefaced liar for putting my perception of the issue? To someone whose reputation for integrity is important, that’s a deadly insult. Then there are the people who’ve been called misogynists, gender traitors, etc., etc., not to mention the vicious things said about Dawkins. These are, again, all far more deadly allegations than the silly, immature insults from some of the Watson haters (though again, I don’t like those either).
My main objection to Watson’s own conduct has always been her treatment of Stef McGraw – and that’s even though I didn’t really agree with McGraw’s initial critique. I thought that McGraw also had a good point there somewhere in the vicinity, but that she kind of misstated things as well. But that doesn’t mean she deserved to be treated as she was at the CFI conference.
Anyway, a train wreck all round. Which is why my own blog is an Elevatorgate-free zone. I don’t want the madness there if I can help it.
Oh, and I now see, Martin, that that was supposed to be a shot at me, since I now find out that it was Abbie who said that. Well, naughty Abbie. Oh, and clever you for being able to twist my words and misrepresent me. :rolleyes:
But see, I never said at any point that Abbie’s saying that was evidence of clear-headedness. In fact, I didn’t even know until just now that she had used those words. I do know her basic position, but I haven’t followed the detail of every comment she’s made.
I think the comment is funny in its use of alliteration, but it’s not the sort of language I wish was used. Abbie uses a lot of colourful language that I don’t really like, but that’s Abbie. I wish we could have all just discussed the issues dispassionately. But Abbie has been clear-headed throughout this debate in not adopting some ridiculous view of sexual politics such as we’ve seen from, oh Greg Laden for example. And unlike so many involved in this debate she can clearly recognise an abuse of power when she sees it. She’s seen the fundamental point very clearly, and it’s to her credit.
Yes, Ophelia Benson over at B&W tried to pull you up a few days ago on account of ERV’s alliterative, erm, turn of phrase, by positing that you had no right to ask the poster “Improbable Joe” to apologise for some derogatory remark that he had made about ERV when she herself uses derogatory language in order to describe Watson. The difference between ERV and Improbable Joe, though, is that Improbable Joe was accusing ERV of being disingenuous by stating that ERV was concerned solely with how someone who is not as well educated as her, and not and pretty as her was more famous and more wealthy than she was. This was an exceptionally patronising comment for Improbable Joe to have made, and, in my mind, far worse than some throw-away and actually rather witty insult. Ophelia was not able to spot the difference between the two insults though, and, seemingly unable to get past the gendered-insult that ERV had made, asked Russell why on Earth Improbable Joe should apologise to ERV when ERV is using words like “snatch” with such wild abandon.
Coming from Glasgow, where words like “snatch” and “twat” are just a part of an adult’s everyday vocabulary, it is enlightening for me to find people for whom the use of such words, whatever the context, is just plain unacceptable, and all further discussion is then null and void if someone dares to mention them.
This isn ‘t really the place for me to be summarising disputes over at other blogs- I got a bit carried away, although if anyone is intereted here is Improbable Joe’s post, and then soon after Russell and Ophelia’s input:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/claiming-to-speak-for/#comment-101417
Hitler might have killed 6 million Jews, but at least he didnt use words like ‘twat’ or ‘snatch’, ‘dick’, amirite*??
LOL!
Who cares about peoples actions, lets focus on *words*!
And not just any words– Calling people ‘liars’ when they certainly arent, thats cool. Calling people ‘misogynists’ or ‘rape apologists’ or ‘homophobic’ or ‘racists’ or ‘thieves’ or ‘murderers’ when they arent, thats totally cool too. They dont have a problem with *that* because it seems like they cant make these accusations against others without being liars/sexist/homophobic themselves in the process. Its not really *that* much of an insult, rite? Thats ‘civil discourse’! No, lets focus on *whispers* NAUGHTY words, that were not or will not be naughty 20 years before/after now. Any and every exercise in futility, rather than get to the point when ones own actions (or inactions) are bare to be judged.
Heeeeeeehehehehehe!
Note: While the ERV blog always has been and always will be Mos Eisley unlike some people, I take speaking engagements very seriously. You dont say ‘dick’ in a talk. You dont say ‘twat’. You dont say ‘bitchdamnfuck’. ERV is a bar/my house, and conferences are a professional setting when you are an invited speaker. I fully encourage you all to keep watching that intro from Watson at Skepticon to see how seriously she takes these engagements. To see how seriously she treats young women in skepticism. What happened to McGraw was not an isolated incident, its something Watson appears to do casually.
It’s never been explained to my satisfaction why the word “twat” is such a no-no, whereas it’s perfectly acceptable to casually throw around words such as “cock” and “dick”. I understand that men, unlike women, are not just now emerging from thousands of years of bigotry, discrimination and chauvinism, and that therefore male gender insults are arguably not as “loaded” as female gender insults, but I’m not convinced that a word like “twat” was ever used in the same pervasive, repugnant manner as a word such as, for example, “nigger”. We all now rightly recoil if we hear black people being referred to as a “nigger”, but I’m fairly sure that the majority of us don’t have the same guttural reaction if we hear of a woman being referred to as a “twat”. A black person being referred to as a “nigger” and a woman being referred to as a “twat” just doesn’t seem comparable to me in terms of how strongly society as a whole would perceive such slights.
Some women seem to be having their cake and eating it, as it were, by crying foul whenever someone lets slip the word “twat”, but will think nothing of blurting out words such as “cock”, “dick” and “prick”. Perhaps there is something that I am missing here, and I would be more than happy to consider other opinions if anyone thinks that I am way off with this line of thought.
And as for Watson’s intro there, I couldn’t get past more than five minutes. What a load of waffling, self-congratulatory nonsense! If I was in the audience I’d be asking, “who are these people that she keeps name-dropping? Is this some sort of in-joke? Get on with it!”
Who cares about peoples actions, lets focus on *words*!
Surely you see the irony in responding to people’s “words”.
“My money on who lost his mind over this would have to be on the person who considers the term “sniffing smelly skepchick snatch” evidence of clear-headedness.” – Martin
Thanks for the drive-by shooting, Martin. If there’s some sort of non sequitur award, I’ll put you up for it. Can’t find your quote, but I’m SURE you’re right; if Abbie said it, she undoubtedly specifically adduced it as an example of clear-headedness. Just as your contribution was a wonderful example of being able to follow a conversation and say something relevant.
He needs to cut his beard to look more like a Civil War reenactor.
Slightly off-topic, but these excerpts from two comments made at B&W express an attitude/argument that I find to be frustratingly condescending. It’s an argument that I’ve seen quite often over the past few weeks. Context: the first comment is a response to a question Ophelia posed, and the second was posted later in that same thread:
and
Ugh, no.
The not-so-implicit assumptions in these comments (and others like them) are:
1) That, in the context of this whole EG blogosphere drama, men who defend and/or comment in support of the female bloggers/writers/etc. who have openly disagreed with the position put forth by PZ et al. are doing so because we are “fair maidens” and “trophy women” and “handmaidens”, blah blah blah, not because they agree with our positions or feel compelled to speak up in opposition to the personal attacks that some of us have received. Or, in other words: the men, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, don’t actually respect our intellectual abilities- they just think that we’re helpless pretty girls and are “white-knighting” us in the hopes of getting some (or something along those lines).
2) That, if a man does find a woman attractive (Note: I’m not making any assumptions about anyone referenced in these discussions here. I don’t know who finds whom attractive. It’s not my business, etc.- I’m just trying to point out what’s being assumed here) he cannot simultaneously respect her intellect and/or agree with her positions on an issue. According to this line of thought, a man can either find a woman attractive or think that she is smart/a formidable thinker/making strong arguments, etc.
3) That we (the women being referred to here: Stef, Abbie, Jen/Zenbuffy, me) aren’t smart or independent or accomplished, etc.: no, we’re just mere “fair maidens”, “photogenic”, “fuckable”, “trophy women”, and “handmaidens” who a few men have chosen to (out of attraction, not respect for our intellectual abilities) support and/or defend throughout this entire blogosphere drama.
and
4) That we (again, the women being referred to here) should reject the support of male allies, because their only possible motivation for supporting us is the desire to get into our pants.
Again, ugh ugh ugh. :/
All of this is so frustratingly condescending and ridiculous. It’s disrespectful to and extremely dismissive of both us gendertraitortrophywomenz and the so-called “white-knights”.
Any thoughts on this?
Yes, I have thoughts on this.
They are guilty of the very actions which they claim to despise.
If it is consciously done, then it is, at best, galling hypocrisy.
Either way, the poster has rendered any subsequent pronouncements on the subject of logic or feminism utterly void.
You are correct to feel revulsion at their portrayal of you.
I am also correct in feeling profound amusement of their supposed abilities to read my mind!
I have a bit of gratuitous advice for the poster. Grow up, please.
Oh noes, ah haz been sprung. All my worries about how we nurture the future leaders of our movement – such as Stef McGaw – have totally been a facade. Obviously I’ve been angling all along for a hot threesome with Miranda and Naughty Abbie. Similarly, on all those occasions when I’ve taken Ophelia’s side against Chris Mooney or whoever … well, need I go on? As for the times when I’ve put in a good word for my friend Paul Zed Myers …
I mean the mind boggles. I’ve even said something nice about Dan Dennett at some point, as I recall. He’d better watch out next time we meet up, which will be early next year (yes, he’s taller – but I’m younger and I work out harder).
And Richard Dawkins had totally better avoid meeting me in any elevators or I’ll suggest a conversation over coffee. Just a word to the wise. ;)
Ugh, “McGraw”. Sorry, Stef.
But only one of the above list of folk has actually publically and materialy libelled you.
I’ll wager that is the last time that you deign to put a good word in their direction, until a remedy is forthcoming.
(Again: rhetorical.)
Lolz! I was just looking through the search terms that have brought people to my site over the past month (they’re usually quite amusing at times, and this month was no exception), and one from this week is, I kid you not (capslock in the original): “RUSSELL BLACKFORD IS ELEVATOR GUY” Hahaha! Wtf?
Yes … I teleported to Dublin from Australia that weekend, just to try out the hotel lift.
You’re both Elevator Guy and Doctor Who! :)
That thread at B&W–
‘Mean Girls’, yes, Ive been called that before. By Michael Behe. Everyone thought that was sexist, at the time (I was just making fun of him for it). Now its a ‘clever response’. *shrug*
‘… she’s mad because Rebecca Watson isn’t as smart’– Anyone who knows me or has had a discussion with me for 15 seconds knows that I think everyone is good at something. I am a total optimist in that regard. Everyone is good at something, and I hope that people get to do The Things they are good at and make a good living off of it, or at least get to do Their Thing for fun as often as possible. This has nothing to do with ‘smart’, but ‘talent’ and ‘hard work’. Cause, the thing is, I went to nerd camps every summer for years (farming town, no real ‘gifted program’, ship us all off to learn physics for the summer). Rule #1 nerd camp newbs learned: do NOT brag about how smart you are. Statistically, there was going to be someone there smarter than you. Furthermore, just because someone had a lower IQ than you, that in no way meant they werent going to wipe the floor with you at chess/math/vocab/knowledge of Star Wars/etc. Why? Cause everyone is good at something.
I have no doubt that there is something Rebecca Watson is better than me at.
But she is incredibly wrong on this topic, and has displayed behavioral markers I find troubling (and has for some time, which is why I have not previously supported Skepchicks as a whole). Got nothin to do with ‘smart’.
‘… she’s mad because Rebecca Watson isn’t… as good-looking…’– If you really want to know, I dont find Watson attractive. To me, like most people who arent Hollywood caricatures, ‘attractive’ is a combination of physical, sexual, intellectual, psychological, and emotional features. It would not matter if Watson looked like Summer Glau and Anna Paquin combined (two women I find ‘good-looking’), it would not make her behavior any less inappropriate. Furthermore, there are individuals who are not ‘good-looking’ in the general Western sense, like Craig Venter, who I think are *extremely* attractive.
“… yet Rebecca gets all the attention and therefore needs to be taken down a few notches…”– I dont want ‘attention’ in the skeptical movement. I get more speaking invitations from atheist groups than I ever accept because I have a job, and it is more important to me than getting ‘attention’ and getting ‘famous’ in the skeptical community. I want to be famous for being a scientist, thus work towards that goal, and when I speak at atheist/skeptical/secular conferences, it is about science. Rebecca Watson is in no way, shape, or form ‘competition’ in that regard, because she is not a scientist, and she *does* crave attention from the skeptical community. Her existence depends on it. ‘Watson’ and ‘Smith’ are non-overlapping circles in a Venn Diagram.
My problem with Watson is that I do not think she is a Net Good for the skeptical community. She is a personality that not only contributes little Good, but actively contributes things I consider Bad. I will speak out against the things I consider to be Most Bad (ie attacking younglings) because I am a part of the skeptical community and do not want *her* behavior to become SOP for *everyone*, not because I want attention, because I dont want attention.
‘… go so dirty and cutthroat so fast over a minor Internet squabble…’
Its not a minor internet squabble. How we treat dissent in the skeptical movement, whether it is from a youngling or Richard Dawkins, is a Very Big Deal that goes way beyond the ‘internet’. I do have ‘principles’, and one of those is that ‘Fair Game’ is never the right answer. Ever.
It is very telling that the PZ/RW/Gollum camp sees ‘intellectual integrity’ as ‘minor’.
I view it as the quite most important attribute to which a human can aspire!
I find this rather amusing, actually- to say that posters such as myself are only “defending” the likes of Miranda and ERV because we think they’re “hot” or “fuckable” is tremendously insulting to the women on the other “side” of this whole debacle! By saying that posters such as myself are only clinging onto blogs such as this one because we fancy the likes of Miranda Celeste is not only deeply insulting to my intellectual integrity, but also highly offensive to women such as Jen McCreight, Greta Christina and Jennifer Ouellette. This line of argument is pretty much explicitly saying that the only good-looking chicks are on the anti-Watson side of the debate! Do these morons ever stop to think about the ramifications of what they are saying?
In any case, I think that it is a rather happy coincidence that the high-profile women on “our” side of the fence are indeed attractive. :)
I replied (with) at greater (crass) length at Abbie’s place. Noting this is a cross post, I’ll dare to summarize here.
I find these sweeping generalizations to be tacky and base; they’re torn apart by even the scantest of analysis but for the possibility that with barely an exception everyone must be keen at prevarication.
As has been noted, particularly with my recent coronation (and fabulous tiara and other tinfoil accoutrement) as Spokesgay of the Comments, I find not a single one of the ladies and, um, ladies-in-waiting to be fuckable. By definition. Yet, somehow I’m lumped in as being possessed of the same implication of being in it for some ass as are all of the other privileged, straight white men coming to the rescue the fairer sex from the evils that lurk in the shadows. Not even drunken fuckable – any amount of booze sufficient to turn me straight would be the kind that would render the deed un-doable.
To suggest that this a generalized operative feature is to discount all of the women being ‘defended’ from remotely simultaneously being fully capable and honestly taken as intelligent agents addressed on merit; and all of the men as being unable to differentiate vaginas from thoughts. Yes, there are indeed people here being objectified, and dehumanized. It’s not from those of us who’ve responded in (un)kind to “Dear Dick” with Miss T. Watson.
Not much to say, Miranda, except that you’re dead on target. I’m always reading at Pharyngula that men should STFU and just listen to women when they talk about what constitutes sexual harassment, objectifying, etc, but of course that only applies to women who agree with them. When PZ et al defend those ideologically pure women, they are stalwart feminists, but when we defend people we agree with who happen to be women, of course our motives have to be bad.
Kind of funny that PZ started up this whole “trophy wife” business in reference to his own wife some time ago. I actually found this at the time to be kind of icky, but I thought, OK, give him a pass, he’s an old fart who’s clumsily trying to be funny. Can you imagine the shitstorm at Pharyngula if anyone other than PZ dared to describe any of their sainted female icons with such a term?
When I tried to explain over at Pharygula to commenters who thought Abbie was being hypocritical by calling PZ out for “mansplaining” that, uh, she was ironically poking fun at his debating tactics, they actually just cluelessly “explained” that when PZ tells a woman how she should think about elevatorgate, obviously that doesn’t count as “mansplaining”. So, uh, where’s the irony, man?
There’s no reasoning with them; their posts have become essentially content-free. They just keep repeating their talking points, interspersed with the use of helpful terminology such as idjits, fuckwads, etc. And mocking doesn’t work either. I suggest we just leave them to simmer in their own self-righteous juices. Let’s give PZ the Stalinist purity he craves; let’s not post a single dissenting opinion at Pharyngula. It’s a waste of time; their opinions are completely ossified.
That asymmetry illustrates the formation of hierarchy that Egbert warned about.
I do wonder about the medium and longer term fallout from this issue. I just read that PZ is moving his non-science posting to a new blog network called freethoughtblogs, where he seems to have some control of who is going to be his co-bloggers. I noticed that he is trying to get Greta Christina and Ophelia Benson on board in the near future so I guess this will be more of a ‘progressive’ political network rather than a skeptical/atheist one.
The reasons given were connected with the stricter editorial control that is going to be imposed by National Geographic once they fully take over the scienceblogs network.
In my opinion that will be the end of the old pharyngula. PZs science posts get very little comments compared to his anti-religion (or mansplainin’) posts so he will be worth little to Nat Geo to keep (and very susceptible to a Bill Donohue style boycott of the magazine if he annoys the catholics again.)
What this entails, overall, is a move towards the politicizing of atheism. I guess it fits in with this whole ‘dictionary atheist’ thing that PZ confused everyone with a few months back. If you see atheism as a defined movement with shared values and goals then it makes sense to oppose ‘dictionary atheists’ who, after all, tend to allow everyone who simply doesn’t believe in God to describe themself as atheist. I guess the same thing can also apply to values such as what type of feminist you are (equality or gender), or what type of politics you hold (liberal or libertarian) and so on. The light has shined on the feminist question within atheism in the past month or so but the whole process of categorizing atheism as a social movement means that these other issues are bound to come up sooner or later – with a resulting round of shocked discoveries of supposed allies who are found to be beyond the pale in one way or the other.
“The reasons given were connected with the stricter editorial control that is going to be imposed by National Geographic once they fully take over the scienceblogs network.”
That is false. 100%, unquestionably false. They have made it abundantly clear that they want us to keep doing whatever we are doing, however we are doing it. Like, they have told me that. They have not said “Abbie, dont use the word ‘twat’.” They have not said “Abbie, dont let your commentors use the word ‘twat’”. They have not said “Back off on the puppy posts, stick to science or “Back off on the atheism posts, stick to science” or “Back off on the politics posts, stick to science”. They *have* said “Keep doing what youre doing”.
If that is the reason given, it is a lie.
This has been on the backburner for some time, though. It is not in direct response to Shaftgate. However, I do think its funny that over a month ago I was telling Jerry about it during his visit, and I was like “Its supposedly going to be run as a democracy. I would rather work under an absent/benevolent overlord than a democracy prone to fits of lunacy.”
And then Shaftgate happened. LOL!!
(note: Brayton has been nothing if not gracious in his approach to me about joining their network some time ago. it was very kind of him to offer me a place to go if NatGeo did fall through. I appreciate that, and I will remember that)
Are you just saying that because you don’t have “any chance of being accepted there now”? ;)
Sweet jebus on a cracker, http://freethoughtblogs.com/ is one of the ugliest websites I’ve seen in a long time. I haven’t much opinion on its content (other than that I do like Brayton and his writing), but, wow, they need to hire a web designer, stat. Or just clean it up a bit. Or something.
Wonder what PZ’s reaction would be if you joined.
This may be a tad tangential, but a few years ago when I still assumed that PZ had integrity, in order to potentially help out Prof Myers in case Phyryngula had no place to call home, I acquired the domains:
pzmyers.org
pzmyers.net
pzmyers.info
and was then willing to hand them over to him gratis, and said as such in between screaming from his horrid horde of harpies.
This offer I am now formally retracting.
I now have no need for them at all, and rather than let them expire, I am looking for other suggestions.
As PZ is no longer on my Christmas list, I leave these up for grabs provided, of course, that they are used in a reasonable fashion, and not for illegal purposes.
If any reader wishes to contact me privately, I give permission for Miranda to privately forward them my email address.
Your usual excellent blog resumes after this blank space…
To be fair, it wasn’t PZ explicitly saying this himself – its more a reading between the lines of what was discussed about the Nat Geo situation on a few different posts on butterflies and wheels.
Since comments are closed on the comic, I guess I’ll post this here.
A few Watson supporters thought the comic supported their point of view. One even said Moses is supposed to be Richard Dawkins.
Does this say anything deeper about some of these people, that they see support in expressions of opposition? Or is this just a case of some people being bad at parsing? I’ve certainly seen that before, where a written passage is completely misunderstood, often persistently, even in the face of explanation.
On another note, now that the infamous CFI speech is available, we can see exactly what Watson did and did not do. I started listening with a completely open mind, determined to at least try taking Watson’s side, as a sort of sanity check on my existing opinion.
The first thing I noticed was that it was about a quarter hour in before Stef McGraw even came up. Did I not see Watson dismiss her comments as “like 2 minutes” before the main topic? I assume she actually got to the main topic at some point, but I stopped watching after the McGraw bit, to process what I saw.
I found a great deal wrong with her reasoning, and find she was, if anything, worse than I imagined from the third-hand reports. She immediately referred to a dissenting opinion as “ignorance”, accused McGraw of “parroting misogynistic thought” for a sentence that had nothing whatsoever to do with hating women, and further accused her of dishonesty by omitting a detail that, truthfully, isn’t all that relevant (the comment about being tired and going off to bed).
Beyond that, I found Watson to be so incredibly self-absorbed. Who does she think she is, that she can spend so much time talking about herself off-topic, when she’s supposed to be talking about the religious right’s oppression of women?
Ironically, it seems Watson is the one who’s incredibly ignorant of feminism, else she’d know that there is no One True Feminism. The kind she advocates is perceived by many (myself included) as post-modern gobbledygook at best and counterproductive at worst. She seems to think it’s like a branch of mathematics, where you either know the material or you don’t.
It’s an ugly new totalitarianism, and none of them seem to recognize the mob from within.
I watched the video half-expecting Watson to come out of it sounding all right, with my own hitherto beliefs on the matter shown to be wrong. Not a bit of it! I had to stop watching a few minutes into her rant about McGraw, as it was just very uncomfortable to listen to. There is absolutely no doubt about it- Watson’s behaviour was completely unacceptable, and I felt mortified for McGraw when Watson began her spiel. Watson displayed a real lack of decorum and empathy in that situation, and how anyone can defend Watson’s behaviour as just part and parcel of rigorous intellectual discourse is beyond my understanding. It was tantamount to bullying, and the analysis of the situation from the students who were in attendance has been proven to be spot-on
Who does she think she is? She’s the one who pulls these stunts, laughs all the way to the bank and then gets hired to come back next year and do it again.
I’ve written about her speaking style; it’s a fairly simple rhetorical gimmick she uses. It’s all through the cunning use of time, because if the same point were stuck in the same paragraph, one immediately notices to that accept half of it as being proper, the other half is necessarily fallacious.
For instance, go to about the nine minute mark, and listen to the rhetorical set-up she twice employs, back to back. 1.) that “don’t take this the wrong way, but . ..” is some kind of code which when properly deciphered means that what comes after the but will have a meaning other than the what it purports to have. As an example, she notes that if one’s friend says, “I’m not a racist, but . . .” you know you’re about to hear something racist. The next example of this she gives she has to wait nearly three minutes (around twelve minutes 34 if my timer is accurate) because, surprise, surprise, she starts in on McGraw with ‘I’m not calling her out to embarrass her, but . . .” you know need to know how ignorant this young woman is of feminism, and about her misogyny and she needs to read “feminism 101 – the blog!”.
Once the filler language is extricated and the point is left bare, it’s immediately obvious that the standard of analysis with regards evaluating phrases that she demands she be afforded is the precise same standard she is simultaneously demanding must be denied her opposition.
There’s a word for this – I’m sure of it . . .
(yes, I realized a 1.) with no 2.) to follow on. It’s all part of my very elaborate, sophisticated rhetorical gimmick; take notes, ladies and jellyspoons.
I hereby christen this rhetorical technique: “A Baldrick”.
As in: “I have a cunning plan”, created by a somewhat dim but Machiavellian mindset.
If we could rewrite history to have Helena known for intellect, Watson would be a millihelena – the kind of intellect that can launch 1 ship.
Hm. I wonder what other scales I can imagine.
Speaking of cunning plans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8pUKXtmcnE Damn, I love that song :) It was my ringtone for a month or two. Good times. It’s such fun to sing along to.
Regrettably, it’s not uncommon for panelists at a non-professional conference to ignore the topic and delve into personal anecdotes instead. It shouldn’t happen, and yet it almost ALWAYS happens.
On a similar note, I see that Rebecca Watson will be appearing on several panels at DragonCon’s SkepTrack. I do believe I’ll be skipping those.
[Note: I deleted the content of this comment because it violated my general "no personal attacks"/insults/namecalling policy. Please keep things civil and avoid insults and name calling, everyone. Thanks- Miranda]
Justicar and John Yates, those champions of reasoned debate, you just know it has to be good ! By the way, MKG, what is your evidence that PZ has “lost his integrity” ?
And Miranda, I agree with you that freethoughtblogs has had the worst start imaginable, and the chosen themes are quite ugly, but what does this have to do with a thread about the evils of PZ Myers and elevatorgate ? Surely it could not be your intent to poison any wells here, right ?
Huh? How is a remark regarding the appeal of a visual style of a website poisoning the well?
During the conversation sparked by a comic the new home for some bloggers came up, are people not allowed to state their subjective opinions regarding visual styles?
Do you think readers cannot see an aside for what it is? An off-topic remark without bearing on any actual arguments made? Or am I completely mistaken and we’re having a formal debate here?
Speaking of visual preferences, I’d like to compliment Miranda on the choice of theme here. I dig simplicity without graphic overload, but I’d prefer non-nested comment threads, those letter-salads in a narrow column are hard to decipher.
It seems that nested comments are set to be allowed up to 5 levels deep, 3rd level is still good to read IMHO.
Afaik, this should be changeable in Dashboard=>Settings=>Discussion=>Other comment settings=>Enable threaded/nested comments x levels deep
But I don’t know what happens to past comments when the allowed nesting level is reduced.
Thanks! And yeah, totally, the nested/threaded comments are a mess with this theme. I did recently change it from 7 levels to 5 levels (as you mention), but I’m tempted to turn them off altogether. But, like you say, I don’t know what will happen to the already nested comments if I do that, so I’m a bit hesitant. I just finished my semester grading (yay!), so I’ll probably have some free time today, and will look through the WP help forums to see if anyone knows the answer to that question.
If I wanted to pay WP for the CSS upgrade, I could definitely tweak it so that the threaded comments wouldn’t get so narrow, but it’s not really worth the cost, I don’t think. Plus, one of the reasons I switched back to WP.com from self-hosted WP is that I was spending WAY too much time tweaking the CSS style sheets of my themes, and I realized that, although I find web design rather fun sometimes (even though my skills are only advanced beginner at best), I should be focusing on writing/posting instead of messing with themes.
Anyway, other than the nested comments issue, I really like this theme. All I had to do was make the header and chose a color scheme and redirect my domain here and it was ready to go.
Soon I’ll have to figure out where to move mirandaswriting.net to, though, as I currently have it hosted on my MobileMe diskspace, and Apple’s doing away with that fairly soon. Ah, well. iWeb sites are a pain anyway. I’ll figure out something soon.
And one more thing: sometime late last year, when some commenters at Jerry’s site mentioned that they were having a hard time responding to each other in some of the longer comment sections, I suggested that he turn threaded comments on, and told him how to, etc. And there are still people over there grumbling about the threaded-ness on occasion (even though they look much better on his theme than mine). And I feel a bit guilty about that, as they were my idea, not his. So, anyway, any members of the Department of WEIT Comment Threading Grumblers should direct any and all complaints to me, not Jerry :)
Anyway, tangents ahoy! :)
Martin, I don’t believe that we are aquainted: I am not a prolific poster on other secular websites, and so I am a touch puzzled as to how you have come to know me. Your comment about me comes across as being rather snidey, which I don’t particularly appreciate.
Also, your comment about how Miranda shouldn’t be making off-the-cuff remarks about the ugly layout of other websites is just strange- threads do sometimes go off on tangents, especially if the tangent happens to concern something that is already being discussed in the thread.
Surely it could not be your intent to poison any wells here, right ?
You might want to take another look at the first sentence of your comment.
Martin- I’m not really a stickler for keeping things 100% on topic around here, so I don’t mind things like a discussion of freethoughtblogs, etc. And I’m not really sure how my comment on its appearance could be construed as “poisoning the well” in any way (considering that “poisoning the well” is generally defined as an ad hominem that is meant to discredit everything that someone (PZ in this case, I presume?) says or will say. I mean, really, if I wanted to make that argument/attempt to discredit or dismiss PZ outright (I don’t), I’d find a better and more direct way of doing it than pointing out that freethoughtblogs is poorly designed).
& I’m no web design snob, but I can’t help but notice when a site is really ugly/messy/poorly designed. Anyway, regardless of the site’s current state of fugliness, I do wish them the best (it could end up being a great resource/collection of blogs), and I’ll definitely still be reading Ed Brayton’s blog.
And, well, if you want to play the logical fallacies game, I could point out that your recent comment at Pharyngula (I don’t read Pharyngula anymore, but my WP dashboard shows me that 20 people came here this morning via the link you left in your comment there, so I took a look at the comment), consists of the argument that my blog has become “another dimwittery black hole”, your evidence for which is that “ERV is there, Blackford, and sadly also Michael Kingsford Gray and windy” (and your mention of Justicar and John Yates in your comment here). This could be described as a fallacy of composition or an association fallacy. Well, except for the fact that none of the people you mentioned (here or in your comment at Pharyngula) have said anything whatsoever on my blog that I find to be objectionable or “dimwitted” or poorly reasoned, etc., and I am grateful for the contributions they’ve made to my comments sections. Anyway, I’m rambling here, but my point is: if you’re going to call me out for a logical fallacy, at least do it when I’ve actually used one, and do keep in mind that your own argument in this case could also be construed as a fallacy, if you want to play that game.
Why dont you petition to get windys ‘Order of the Molly’ taken away over on Pharyngula, Martin?
Miranda and I simply let people post on our blogs, including windy. But windy has won an *AWARD* for commenting at PZs place. Cant let him be ‘forever tainted’ by ‘palling around’ with dimwittery.
PZ incorrectly accused Russell Blackford of lying.
A chap with whom he shared the stage at the Global Atheist Conference in 2010.
This is not just unprofessional, but dispicable behaviour.
Oh then Rebecca has learned well from a master!
Well, we didn’t share the stage at any one time. But I drove Paul back to the hotel from the party for speakers and convention volunteers, organisers, etc. And I’d met him before and was on friendly terms with him. I’m surprised to see such a personal attack from him (as opposed to putting his own interpretation of events in a calm, dispassionate way).
And yeah, as I said, I don’t like being called a liar, something which it should be pretty obvious I am not.
A lot of people whom I’d believed sensible are showing irrational streaks over this issue. E.g. it’s not that hard seeing what Watson did wrong – but some folks seem determined to protect her at all costs.
We’re seeing totally crazy statements about how men should cross the road so as not to create fear in women whom they might pass on the street. The form of “feminism” being advanced by some is not something I recognise as feminism as all. Instead of emphasising the equal competence, intelligence, and moral capacities of women and men, it tends to demonise men, infantalise women, and attempt to problematise perfectly ordinary, non-coercive social and sexual interaction.
Likewise, we’ve been getting totally unnuanced discussions of insults like “twat”. I don’t actually like these, either, as it happens, because I think there is at least tendency for them to express and reproduce sexist attitudes …but not everything is the same, and it’s possible to tease out the distinctions analytically and dispassionately. (E.g. I’m far more worried about the use of “cunt” as an insult, because its primary meaning is still the female pudenda; whereas “twat” has lost that meaning to some considerable extent. I think that “fool” is now its *primary* meaning.)
And people are being accused of misogyny (i.e. hatred of women) when they are palpably not displaying any such thing. And then there’s the ridiculous insult “gender traitor” and all it apparently implies about sucking up to the patriarchy.
Frankly, I’m tempted to say “Only in America,” because the most bizarre views seem to be coming mainly from Americans (this whole Elevatorgate episode reminds me of the Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” when so many Americans went absolutely batshit crazy, in a way that never would have happened over such a trivial thing in, say, Australia, or Canada, or France).
But fortunately some of the Americans involved – Miranda and Abbie, for example – do seem to have sensible, non-pathological attitudes to ordinary human interaction. Cheers for them.
Hear here [sic]!
I may not agree with you on certain narrowly corralled things, (in particular: the worldly utility of philosophy), but for any professional such as you to be falsely implied or flippantly referred to a liar is utterly inexcusable in my scheme of things. Even if they be one’s sworn enemy.
Doubly so, as it comes from one who purports to be a rational debater.
When, or if, you receive an appropriate apology from PZ for his, his, (oh damnit I cannot translate the Greek word of which I am thinking as apposite into English, and that fault is mine), offence at your kleos.
Yes, the word is definitely “kleos”.
One dictionary gives a translation of this troublingly untranslatable word as:
“glory, often implying fame and immortality (in the memory of others), achieved as a result of one’s time (acts of excellence meriting honor)”, but which we Aussies might more prosaically render as (say):
“Rightfully earned Reputation, mate”
Good luck with your erstwhile compatriot. I sincerely hope that he is not to deeply entrenched to admit fault.
And I trust that you might excuse my dropped words, and grammar flubs.
“to” where I meant “too”?
And: please mentally insert “as” in the middle of “referred to a liar”.
My impression, Russell, is that there are a lot of separate issues getting mixed together in this whole mess. The whole thing reminds me of a political debate where it is considered a sign of weakness to concede even an inch and using an inference to the worst possible explanation of your opponents points is simply the normal way to behave.
It is interesting that the standard way scientists or skeptics approach questions – to ask “what is the evidence for that?” seems to be out of the question. To even try to do so and you will be seen as doubting an obvious truth – revealing yourself as ‘not one of us’.
I find it amazing how little you need to disagree about to be labeled a misogynist MRA. It’s enough to find some good and bad points on both sides of the matter. It’s enough to post on the same messageboard as someone who uses a scatological insult, yet the same term recently used on B and W to describe the pope did not even raise an eyebrow from regulars who went into paroxyisms of rage when Abbie used it.
I bet Wally Smith must be kicking himself.
He spends years setting up dozens of sockpuppets and even his own “atheist” blog and ingratiating himself with the likes of Mooney and Rosenau, all with the aim of promoting division within the atheist movement. All he really needed to do was choose the correct high profile skeptic target and make a reasonable point about professional behavior and then simply sit back and watch the fur fly.
Russel
Unless it is your position that it was the McGraw/Dawkins stuff that raised hackles(and clearly it isn’t for the people who have a different view from this), I dont see P.Z. calling you a liar – he was responding to a Mr DNA.
Likewise, we’ve been getting totally unnuanced discussions of insults like “twat”.
And I for one am surprised to hear you express this view.
Both Mr.DNA and Russell made it clear that this was what raised hackles for them personally and for a lot of the other dissenters. They are not saying this is what did it for everyone. It’s hard to see how you could only accuse one of them of lying and not implicate the other as well.
It isn’t clear and which is why I asked Russel. I haven’t followed every single comment on every single thread and as far as I remember Russel had an issue with Stef McGraw being called out , which precedes any lying accusations.
Sorry for mispelling Russell’s name- twice!.
Since a few people (at various places) have asked, I tracked down the direct links to the comments in question:
Russell’s comment at B&W: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/hows-it-going/#comment-98001
PZ’s response to someone bringing up that comment on Abbie’s previous thread: http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/07/dawkins_coup_de_grace_in_vegas.php#comment-4508974
I’ve just now spotted this discussion- I am the “someone” who brought Russell’s comment up at ERV. I am Mr. DNA! I had never really posted much on secular blogs up until Elevator Gate, and I chose the handle “Mr. DNA” at ERV’s place because I’ve used it as a pseudonym in the past. When I made my first post here, a week or so after I started posting at ERV, the computer decided that my screen-name would be “John Yates”, what with that being my Gravitar name. I haven’t posted at ERV for a while (although I have been following the “Endless Threads”), and so I can’t be accused of having had two different identities at the same time!
On-topic: In a response to PZ in ERV’s “Dawkins coup de grâce in Vegas” thread, which Miranda has linked to, I explained to PZ why so many people were upset at his and Watson’s comments; that for me and many others Elevator Gate was not the main issue. I then posted a link to Russell’s comment at B&W because it echoed my thoughts so well. PZ then hit back by saying that Blackford was playing a “rhetorical game” in his post at B&W, and he went on say that “claiming that it is the McGraw/Dawkins lynching that has raised hackles is simply a lie, a barefaced, dishonest revision of history” (this was strange because I didn’t disagree that some people were upset at Watson for bringing up Elevator Guy, just that it wasn’t that which had irked myself and many others). Since this is what both Russell and I had indeed claimed the accusation of lying seems to have been aimed at the both of us and, indeed, anyone else who holds that view.
Yes, I only took notice once PZ tweeted “I can confirm those comments were from Richard” (which tickled my curiosity) and Watson started writing about how Dawkins was ‘in the past’ and that she was boycotting him. I didn’t even know what was going on before that as I don’t follow Watson or the ‘Skepchicks’, but once I saw people being attacked as misogynists for simply saying the same things as Dawkins (who I agree with) I felt the need to wade in. I suspect this is true of many others. After all, how many people really care what Watson says on her YouTube channel?
Oh yeah, and I think that I may have found the solution to the tiny, hard-to-read nested comments- reply to the original comment which generated all of the replies! My comment above (and hopefully this one as well) are a result of my responding to Rusell (August 3, 2011 12:33 am ).
Thank you! That is awesome! I’ll give it a try in some other threads, too
CFI is planning a “Women in Secularism” conference:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/women_in_secularism/
Judging by the list of speakers, I just had to leave a comment. Miranda, I plugged your name! :-)
Ha! I doubt that gender traitors would be allowed :) & Oh wow, that’s an, um, interesting idea for a conference.
I mean, really??:
Is Lindsay arguing that women have never received any recognition? Really? That’s a huge overgeneralization.
And I’d hate to know that I was invited to a conference simply because I have the appropriate genitalia. I want to be recognized for whatever merit there may be in the things I do/write, not how oppressed and/or under-represented I supposedly am.
this is rather a slap to the recent TAM where they went out of their way to have a high number of women speakers AND 40% of the attendees were women. I agree, women need more representation, but over the top statements like “finally receive some” ….hello?
Those speakers have not been invited simply because they have the appropiate genitalia. What do you mean with that comment?
Sure, I’m happy to clarify. Please see my comment below (I didn’t directly respond to you simply because the comment threads in my WordPress theme get really narrow after too many comments)
Out of interest INTP, what did Christina Rad say about all of this? I’m familiar with the others you mentioned but would be interested to hear her point of view if it is crystallised somewhere online.
She had a video which included a few seconds of her on a panel at TAM9
- funnily enough, within those few seconds she used two ‘gendered’ insults.
Don’t worry though, they were RW approved insults! (dick and pussy)
I haven’t seen anything were she addresses the topic in detail.
Speaking of the CFI Conference, check out this comment http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/next-year-in-dc/#comment-103807 (at B&W, but not a comment by Ophelia. I don’t know who the commenter is (other than it’s a he), as they use a pseudonym (“Sili”)).
First, he quotes this, from INTP’s comment at the CFI blog post:
Then “Sili” goes on to say (the bolding is mine):
Holy crap. That’s seriously messed up on SO many levels!
Another disastrous landslide of moral ground!
Don’t they know the first rule of holes?
Agreed. It has a Godwin’s Law feel to it. It really is quite asinine. Clearly, being a nontheist/skeptic does not make you immune to accepting bizarre extremist views.
I was also unimpressed with Ophelia’s comments. Apparently, I’m “stupid” because I don’t think a conference on women and secularism should be limited to radical feminist voices. Miranda, your earlier post “Feminists can be bullies too” is confirmed once again. Radfems clearly do not represent all women’s perspectives in the secular community and it would be a farce to pretend that they do. “Radical Feminist Ideologues in Secularism” would be a more appropriate name for such a conference.
It’s unfortunate, but this whole schism is increasingly turning me off from organized secularism. If being associated with secular groups means that I have to accept radical feminist ideology (or be insulted and smeared if I don’t), then I really want nothing do with them.
INTP, I think the problem with your point is that it is not limited to radical feminism. The vast majority of speakers have had nothing to do with the recent elevator kerfuffle and the meeting was arranged BEFORE it blew up. Many of them can’t even be described as radical feminists anyway (and those that you give that description probably just see themselves as ‘feminists’ rather than ‘radical feminists’.
@Jose-
Sure, I’m happy to clarify.
First, I sincerely apologize for any offense caused by my comment. I certainly didn’t intend to cause any offense. However, in retrospect, I can see how my comment could be interpreted in a way that could cause offense, and I feel badly about that. All I can say is that I meant no offense whatsoever, and that I should have phrased my comment in a clearer way.
Second, although I certainly understand that anything publicly posted on the internet is “fair game” for others to blog about, I never expected that an excerpt from one of my short silly comments would be made into the focal point of a post on a popular blog. When I write a blog post, I strive to be as clear, thoughtful, and civil as I possibly can. In this case, if I had written a blog post on the issue, I would have articulated my position in a much clearer and more thorough fashion.
Comment threads are sometimes different, though. Along with just about everyone who takes part in comment threads (on any blog), I sometimes adopt a more casual tone than I do when writing blog posts. This isn’t always the case, but sometimes it is, and there are times when I’m a bit silly and casual (but never nasty or vicious) in my comments on some comment threads. As I said, I think this is true (to varying extents) of just about everyone who participates in the comment threads on blogs.
Again, I never expected that an excerpt from one such comment would be made the focal point of a post on a popular blog. Comments are certainly “fair game”, I know, but, as I said, if I had made a post about this particular issue, I would have made my opinions clear, and done so in a thoughtful, civil, and unambiguous manner, and would have done my best to word that hypothetical post in such a way that would clearly convey that I am speaking about my thoughts and opinions only, and not passing judgment on anyone else.
Third, that brings us to the content of my comment. Let’s focus on the second half of it, because that is the part that is under a great deal of scrutiny at the moment. I’ll quote it here:
Again, had I made these points in a different rhetorical context (in this case, a blog post), I would have presented them in a much clearer, more serious, and more thoughtful manner. In this excerpt from my comment, I was making the following points:
1) That I am not interested in participating in any conference that limits participation to women.
2) That I would worry that I had been invited simply because I am female. I would wonder if I, personally, was qualified enough to be a part of such a conference, and wonder if I would have been invited to a conference that wasn’t limited to female speakers. At the back of my mind, I would wonder if I was “good enough”, so to speak, to be there.
3) That, if I am invited to be a part of a conference, or a publication, I want it to be because of the merit there may be in my writing, etc., not because I am female. In the context of a conference that limits participation to females, I would wonder if I had been invited based on that merit or not. I, personally, would be concerned that I hadn’t.
As I said, I do recognize that I could have and should have (and would have, in an actual post) made these points in a more thorough and thoughtful manner, one that would make it clear that I am talking solely about my personal opinion on conferences that limit participation to women, and the concerns (as outlined in point number two) that I, personally, would have were I to be invited to such a conference.
I certainly never meant to imply that women who are invited to and who accept invitations to conferences that limit participation to women are invited solely because they are women, or that they are not skilled and qualified individuals. All I meant to say is that I, personally, would not be interested in taking part in such a conference, for the reasons I mentioned above.
Again, rhetorical contexts do matter here. This was a short, casual, and silly comment in a long comment thread. I didn’t expect it to be dissected to bits. If I had known that it would be, I of course would have expressed myself in a more thoughtful manner and would have made it clear that I was not passing judgment on anyone, and that I certainly did not mean to cause any offense.
I have never (and would never) personally insult or attack any of the women under discussion. Nor do I permit any personal attacks (no matter the target), sexist or otherwise, from the commenters on my blog. If you’d like, you can search my blog to confirm that this is the case.
As I mentioned above, I do understand how my comment could be interpreted in a different manner than I intended it to be, and I am very sorry for any offense I inadvertently caused. Although I understand that everything on the internet is “fair game”, I do think that digging up this particular comment and using it as the focus of a blog post wasn’t a very fair thing to do. I think that if you take a look at my blog posts, you’ll see that I always strive to be as clear and civil as possible, even when my writing is passionate. I may not always achieve those goals, but I always try. As such, I think it would have been much fairer to use something from one of my blog posts, not a silly little comment I wrote in a few seconds. However, I realize that life isn’t fair, and that I have to stand behind everything I write online. Rhetorical contexts are crucially important, though, and I, personally, would never create a blog post based upon a comment someone made in a comment thread. We all employ different rhetorical styles in different situations, and, in general, blog comments are not most individual’s clearest and most thoughtful pieces of writing.
To reiterate: I certainly didn’t intend to offend anyone. I do understand, though, how my comment could be interpreted in a way that causes offense. I assure you that I never intended any disrespect, and I am sorry if I caused anyone to feel offended. I hope that the explanations I’ve provided here will clarify what I meant by my remarks, and I ask that everyone take into consideration the context in which my remarks were made (a comments section), and realize that, were I to write about this issue in a blog post, I would have made sure to be clear and precise, and to present my points in a way that could not be interpreted as offensive to anyone.
I realize that there are some who will doubt my sincerity here, but there is nothing I can do about that.
Again, I was more than happy to provide these clarifications. However, beyond this comment, I will not be discussing this further. Before yesterday, I may have considered doing so, but not now.
Although I will not be discussing this particular topic (the comment under consideration) any further, all are welcome to comment on this thread or anywhere else on my blog, as long as you are willing to remain civil and avoid all personal insults.
Miranda, your comment was not really a problem. I read it and I took it the way you meant it (not an attack on the speakers at this conference, but more of “If I was invited, I might question why I was invited”). This wouldn’t pertain to someone like Ophelia, it’s obvious why she was invited (as an outspoken advocate of women in the atheist movement and someone who was there early on). Others might question why they were picked based on the topic of the conference and the fact that there might be males, like Pinker, who could have given a more appropriate talk, but were excluded based on gender.
The problem is this flame war itself. There are probably 4 major camps and each camp has circled their wagons. If you’re not in the circle, you’re an enemy. If you go into one of the camps, say ERV, and make a statement supporting a comment, then you are deemed to have supported every word and comment on that blog. You are then added to an enemies list. This is especially true of the B&W and Pharyngula camps , their lagaars are particularly tight ones. I have seen opinions at all the blogs that are sensiblle and all the blogs have terrible comments also. None of these camps are totally right and none are completely wrong. This is not a black and white situation, there are gray areas, but some people can’t accept that.
I have to agree with Steve Zara that this flame war might be very harmful in the long run (and boy did he get attacked for saying that at B&W). I have seen people who have been on friendly terms ending up feeling very insulted by others and bridges are being burned that may take years, if ever, to mend. And for what purpose? I think everything that can be said about elevatorgate has been said. It’s time for everyone to take a chill pill and calmly re-access the situation and quit attacking everyone who questions their opinion.
Sorry for the rambling rant.
I read your comment as referring to yourself alone rather than saying other women were chosen simply for the fact of their gender or other quota filling reasons. Considering the event was being organized months before the current furore I think it is (with, perhaps, one or two exceptions) a very good representative group of women in US secular activism. It is unreasonably for INTP to expect that the likes of Abbie or yourself would have be invited since you are not really part of this particular speaker circuit, are not running secular organizations or have not written books about the issues that the conference seeks to address.
Unfortunately there is, at present, a tendency for individuals to pick the worst interpretation of an opponents statements in order to paint them in the worst light possible.
Anything you state on this issue IS being taken down to be used in evidence against you.
Sigmund, that’s not what happened in this case, at least. I didn’t say “oh goody, a way to paint Miranda in the worst light possible!” I simply read the comment – and was shocked. I read what I took to be the obvious meaning of the comment. I still don’t think there is any other reading possible. It was already about Miranda – the word “I” was a dead giveaway of that – but that doesn’t mean it was just a random personal observation like “I love cherry pie.” It was a personal observation with [very obvious] general implications.
This is an old, old, old trope, after all, at least in the US. It’s been thrown at black people for decades – “You just got here because of affirmative action.” It’s an insult and it’s meant to be an insult. I really don’t believe Miranda doesn’t know that.
So, no, sorry, “And I’d hate to know that I was invited to a conference simply because I have the appropriate genitalia” can’t be understood as meaning nothing but some arbitrary preference of Miranda’s that has no connection to the CFI conference.
Those psychic powers of yours are getting better and better as time marches on, Ophelia. Pretty soon, no one will even need to use the internet or speak before you’ll be telling them what they must think and do think and must mean and do mean.
/grats
I understand what you are saying, Ophelia, but I simply disagree. I don’t find it difficult to come to the conclusion that I have about Miranda’s remarks.
I’ll try an analogy. My background is as a scientist in an environment where there are large numbers of women scientists. In that situation there is nothing unusual about the idea that a particular woman scientist would not want to attend a conference about ‘Women in Science’ in contrast to a conference where the subject is her research interest (say genetics or cancer). It is not putting down the topic itself to say you would not want to be a participant – particularly if you haven’t been active in, say, outreach events promoting more women taking up science as a career. For them to decline is not putting down the idea that Women should be more involved in science or even throwing up old tropes about ‘positive discrimination’. Indeed to claim that you WOULD want to be included is making a positive claim that you see yourself as possessing similar expertise in the topic in question to the others on the panel. I have no problem with you, Ophelia, making that claim, what with your books and with Butterflies and Wheels, but is it not possible that another woman might come to the conclusion that she doesn’t see herself in that company for reasons of personal expertise and interest rather than thinking the whole idea is bunk or political correctness?
I read Miranda’s remarks to be both a criticism of INTPs point (that she and Abbie should be included – I’ve given reasons elsewhere in this thread why this is a bad argument from INTP) and a statement that she doesn’t see herself as a spokesperson on the issue of women in skepticism.
That raises the question of who do you judge to be raising themselves as (necessarily female from your wording) “spokesperson[s] on the issue of women in skepticism”?
Can I have a list, please?
Michael Kingsford Gray, I think I mentioned elsewhere on this thread that I found the current list to be a good cross-section of women in skepticism in the USA. I think all of them apart from, perhaps, one or two, are deserving of being regarded as experts on this topic.
“It is not putting down the topic itself to say you would not want to be a participant”
But look at the whole comment, Sigmund – it’s an unmistakable jeer. It IS putting down the topic itself.
“& Oh wow, that’s an, um, interesting idea for a conference.
I mean, really??”
I expect your “apart from, perhaps, one or two” will encourage the Justicar faction to conclude you meant me (along with of course The Demon Watson). I doubt that’s what you meant, but I bet they won’t.
Like, um, before I accept a faction of devotees, I’ll need to know first what the fringe bennies are . . .
Thanks. I asked the same question over at B&W’s but I didn’t get an answer so I thought it would be better to ask you directly. I didn’t come here in the first place because I was afraid I would receive responses like the ones I received at ERV, and wasn’t really looking forward to that. Thanks for receiving me in such a welcoming manner :)
Pity you’ll no longer be talking about this, but okay. I posted an idea about it at CFI’s post, suggesting that an all-women event in today’s state of things ironically doesn’t mean they are invited just because of their sex, but the complete opposite of that, that is, the point to it would be that regardless of being all women, this event will be as good in terms of content as any other. If the event turns out well, it will be positive evidence that women are not being invited to talk at meetings just because of their sex, to fill a PR quota (it’s a common claim), but because they are good enough as speakers to achieve anything they want on their own, let alone with the help of the other half of the community.
Miranda – I think you are wrong. I do think there is a purpose in inviting someone like you partly because you are a woman, as it may be a form of necessary positive discrimination. But we can surely discuss our different points of views rationally sometime. And that is the point. As rationalists we should support rational behaviour when it comes to the exchange of ideas. What we should certainly not do is actively discourage others from discussion because we throw vitriol at others who have even a relatively mild political disagreement. That is actively damaging to the cause of reason. That’s why I’m so fed up with this silly arguing by senior Gnus – it’s very bad for the movement. Part of the point of such people being visible is surely to encourage others to feel comfortable ‘coming out’ as atheists and rationalists. What we have instead is scrapping and bullying that’s going to scare people away.
I have my own views as to who was right and wrong regarding Elevatorgate. But that’s not the point any more. What matters is whether or not we have an atheist movement that is welcoming to people who want to find out about atheism and science and reason. This is not about accommodationism – we should criticise bad ideas fiercely, but in a civilized way, because being civilized is, if nothing else, good politics and PR.
“I do think there is a purpose in inviting someone like you partly because you are a woman, as it may be a form of necessary positive discrimination. ”
I do not think this is a coherent concept. Exclusion of people based on race, gender, orientation, what not is inherently wrong. There is no such thing as positive bigotry.
If you grant to one group the status of having the right kind of bigotry, you have no grounds to deny another; whites only didn’t seem to work out too well. Blacks only, women only, men only, straights only are equally repugnant.
Miranda –
“… I never expected that an excerpt from one of my short silly comments would be made into the focal point of a post on a popular blog [ed note: disingenuously avoiding naming names, eg. Butterflies and Wheel] … if I had made a post about this particular issue, I would have made my opinions clear, and done so in a thoughtful, civil, and unambiguous manner … Again, rhetorical contexts do matter here. This was a short, casual, and silly comment in a long comment thread …”
In other words, Miranda, you’re going to whine about others [Ophelia] reading and responding to your “short silly comments” in a long thread – but you’re going to bury your supposed apology to everyone you offended in a long silly comment in a long thread – and you’re expecting everyone to read this apology as valid.
Jesus, woman, get your courage up and make that public apology the top subject of your next blog post. Don’t wimp out, you little darling, don’t bury it 95 comments down and then hypocritically expect others to take one of your silly comments seriously while giving you a free pass on the other of your silly comments.
“I realize that there are some who will doubt my sincerity here, but there is nothing I can do about that.”
No wonder why there are “some” who doubt your sincerity here.
It should not be “some” who doubt your sincerity. It should be everyone who can read for context.
(cross-posted with some edits from B&W)
Well, I see those on your side are still making sure to advise women how they’re supposed to exist, and when and where they’re supposed to do something. By gender even.
Thanks for the message, princess. *kisses you on both cheeks*
How was Hotshoe’s advice advice to “women”, particularly? How was it existential advice as opposed to advice on one particular subject?
Never mind answering. It clearly wasn’t. Your comment was simply a not very convincing attempt to dismiss what Hotshoe had to say without addressing the substance of his/her remarks at all.
“Jesus, woman, get your courage up and make that public apology the top subject of your next blog post”
I’ll go try this on Pharyngula and see if they agree that it’s acceptable to address women in that way while telling them what they *must* do.
Any bets on how it’ll fly?
Complaining about the use of the word woman to describe a woman… really? Now your just grasping at straws trying to find insult from “the other side”
OttawaAnon: I accept your proposal. I’m going out to dinner tonight and I’m hopeful my waiter/waitress will be young black college student so I can try this out, “hey, black person, go get my drink.”
We’ll see how your suggestion goes!
Another problem with the “it was just a comment” complaint is that this is obviously a fraught issue, and this post and its comments are in the spotlight. Miranda can hardly have expected that comment to just float by without anyone noticing.
Also, about this bit: “I never expected that an excerpt from one of my short silly comments would be made into the focal point of a post on a popular blog.”
It wasn’t made into the focal point. It was an afterthought. The post was about a different comment on a different site; a different snide comment about the CFI conference. I saw Miranda’s comment after I’d written the post, so I updated it to add the comment.
Miranda’s resentment would perhaps carry more weight if she had any sympathy whatsoever for other women who are subject to a non-stop barrage of sexist garbage at ERV. Since her sympathy seems to be exclusively for herself, in the very midst of a sustained character assassination of another woman on a blog [ERV] where she comments often, I can’t feel very compassionate.
It was an afterthought.
Really? ‘Fuck off, Miranda’ was an afterthought? Well then, I guess you are above any/all claims of hypocrisy then.
… sexist garbage at ERV…
You mean like how females who disagree with Watson et ass are sex-addicted non-human primates?
Oh waaaaaait. That was on yooooooour blog. But its not ‘sexist garbage’ as long as they arent using ‘naughty words’, amirite?
See above re: hypocrisy.
Dont break a hip climbing up on that cross, Benson.
The whole thing about Miranda was an afterthought. I wrote the post about what you said about the CFI conference, and posted it, and then I saw what Miranda said about the CFI conference, so I updated the post with that added.
Yes, sexist garbage at ERV, such as “Twatson” over and over and over and over again.
Cute age joke. Quite right, I break a hip every other day; I’m crumbling to bits; also, as you’ve pointed out, ugly.
I didnt write anything about the CFI conference, except to point a bored commentor towards the stupid comments at the CFI place (including yours) because they were funny. ‘lol’ funny, not ‘lulz’ funny, but homeboy was bored.
I did, however, write an email to Miranda about it where we discussed various reasons why we each thought it was silly, none of which included a ‘naughty word’. But that certainly didnt stop you from building your own caricature out of a post that doesnt even exist yet. Pathetic.
Trolling comments for blog material, like Watson trolling YouTube for conference speaking material. Its like youre Professors at Harvard!
And way to dodge your own hypocrisy and ignore the context of my she-hag comment (hint: youre ugly on the inside, as this whole fiasco has demonstrated). I know a good ophthalmologist if you want those cataracts removed.
Also, “In other words, Miranda, you’re going to whine about others [Ophelia] reading and responding to your “short silly comments” in a long thread – but you’re going to bury your supposed apology to everyone you offended in a long silly comment in a long thread – and you’re expecting everyone to read this apology as valid.”
Is contradictory. She’s whining (as those women do!) about [Ophelia] reading her blog comments, and then puts the apology in the exact place that [Ophelia] is known to be reading. And that is “bury[ing]” the apology; that’s brilliant. Next up, I’m going to hide my porch light by only turning it on in the nighttime.
Please, don’t start yet another flame war here. I was only trying to get an answer to something I didn’t understand and I’m already regretting posting anything; surely we already have plenty of places to argue. I don’t want to be responsible for yet another one, so, please.
Replying to http://mirandaceleste.net/2011/07/28/i-love-you-barmaid/#comment-1033
in less-skinny format.
I didnt write anything about the CFI conference, except to point a bored commentor towards the stupid comments at the CFI place
Yes you did. You wrote
I will probably start some shit again this weekend re: the ridiculousness of the CFI conference.
In reply to Ophelia above, perhaps I was reading a little more into Miranda words than were contained in the original post but I don’t consider that unwarranted. I have seen Miranda comments on blogs I frequented for several years and have read her posts here. I don’t find it unreasonable to draw a picture of her general views from that material – and that view was pretty much confirmed by her fuller explanation. Her snark in the original post was mainly aimed at Ron Linsays point that womens contribution would ‘finally recieve some recognition’ (that is not, perhaps, the best wording imaginable.
As for the “perhaps one or two” who might not be suitable speakers that certainly does not include you as I think it should be clear from my post.
Finally I will say that I find the sort of personal insults being flung about wily-nilly (!) to be enormously corrosive. The presence of insulting behavior as a standard way of interaction was the prime reason I stopped visiting pharyngula several years ago and once it becomes accepted as part of the ‘culture’ of any site then I simply move on. I am not ‘shocked’ by this behavior but it simply means for me that open argument is no longer possible at that particular site.
I do find your explanation a bit strange.
Suppose you are invited somewhere to speak, where the speakers are overwhelming male. Would you then worry that you had been invited simply because you are female? Would you wonder if you, personally, were qualified enough to be a part of such a conference?
There is such a concept as the token woman.
So either, you seem to be generally insecure about your abilities, but then I don’t understand why you need a conference with only female speakers to make this insecurity relevant or it seems you think that someone organizing a conference with only woman speakers is less likely to search for qualified speakers as other organizers and by implication seem to suggest that the speakers present are more likely to be less qualified as we can expect from other conferences.
If this is not what you want to imply, I think you need to explain yourself better.