The Coffee Loving Skeptics

I think blogs, tweets etc are causing more damage and harm. this isn’t to say “don’t talk about it” but to say “Lets look at how we’re communicating and let’s talk about it properly”. In person, on skype etc will always be better than blogs/ tweets etc

Unfortunately, and I have now seen this first hand, at places like Freethought Blogs there is an extreme “we’re right, you’re wrong get used to it” mentality.

They have a set of beliefs they feel should be enforced because, in their minds, it is right. It’s dogmatic thinking. It’s hard to break people away from that.

As I type this, Matt Dillahunty and Thunderf00t are on twitter having at each other.

Emotions are flared now more than ever. I honestly think this is something we have to wait and see how it plays out.

I haven’t actually heard anyone say “sexism doesn’t happen at all” or “if you go to TAM you will be harassed.” What is actually said is something along the lines of “I’ve never seen anyone harassed” and “the skeptical community has a sexism problem.” People on both sides fill in the blanks and translate the second message into the first.

This is partly a problem having to do with polarization, but I think the bigger issue is imprecision. You won’t find a lot — if any — hard claims made by feminists in the movement. You will see people saying “the skeptical community has a sexism problem,” but I’ve never seen it qualified in any numerical sense (certainly not in away that was adequately backed up). There has been virtually no attempt made to look at the problem in a rigorous sense, and when you take a look at who the majority of these feminists are, it’s no surprise that such is the case.

These people are steeped in the culture of social justice, perhaps even more so than any other ideology. They speak the language of critical sociology, not skepticism or atheism. You’ll hear them talking about things like “experience” and “privilege” not “data” or “evidence.” They aren’t approaching the problem from a skeptical viewpoint, they’re doing it from a perspective that skeptics frequently rail against, one that emphasizes a different way of knowing than the scientific process we venerate and emulate.

That isn’t to say they aren’t largely rational — they are — but they’re more philosophical than they are empirical in their process. If you view the posts written on Freethought Blogs or Skepchick, you’ll notice that while they’re lacking in data they’re full of carefully reasoned, passionate arguments. These people are intelligent, they’re applying a logically consistent world view, and using the same critical thinking techniques as us. The problem is, they have different values than we do and a lot of us don’t even understand what it is they’re saying because we’re unfamiliar with their formulation of concepts like “privilege.”

The thing is, the majority of what these people believe can, in fact, be grounded in skepticism empirically. Take privilege for instance, it’s loosely defined as a way that the construction of society favors one group over another. We could set up an experiment to observe how scientists treat female and male grad students on a large scale and see the ways that women are disadvantaged in scientific careers. It is possible to create a set of skeptically valid facts, even through something as simple as extensive thought experiments, which leads us to accept many — if not most — of the tenets of feminism. However, that is not what’s happening.

Arguments are framed from a social justice perspective aimed at a skeptical mass are essentially bound to fail. We have different values than they do; we consider evidence differently. To them, anecdote is the plural of data. To us, anecdotes are anecdotes, they’re of such poor quality as data that we toss them away and find something more useful.

In short, feminists have largely failed to mount an argument to convince “us” (I use this in an abstract sense, because I personally am convinced) because they aren’t speaking our language or using our methods. Don’t get me wrong, there are some self-identified skeptics out there who wouldn’t alter their perspectives even in light of evidence, but by definition those people aren’t skeptics: skeptics proportion their beliefs to the (good/scientific) evidence, that is a cornerstone of what we believe.

Skeptics have failed as well. We haven’t met them half way, attempted to educate ourselves in their theory before criticizing it, or asked good questions. The discussion could’ve gone a lot better from our angle if we were a little bit more Socratic in our debates and less aggressive.

Of course, to some extent there is, and will always be a divide between Skepticism and Social Justice. They have different values, and where we can draw contradictions between those values there will always be problems. We may be able to prove empirically that women are often treated worse, but discussions about sexist language and objectification exist on a stage that may never be made rigorous or scientific no matter how hard we try.

Some things are objective, some things are subjective, I’d like to see us come to an agreement on the objective things and enact some basic policies to make women feel more welcome among us. We should be able to analyze their body of claims and beliefs and take what jives with us and reject what doesn’t. Unfortunately… That hasn’t happened.

At all. And both sides are to blame.

Wouldn’t alter their perspectives* I wish I could edit

ed: by Tony: I’ve edited it for you so it says what you intended.

Well, I certainly think polarization is an issue, just as I said, I think the larger issue is the clash of two different intellectual systems.

Social Justice and Skepticism agree on some things and disagree on others. And neither side is reaching out to meet the other.

Edit out the gendered slur

You know it bothers them. Compromise starts with you. You can do it right now.

A bitch is a female dog. It’s constantly used to describe women. It is a gendered slur.

Maybe part of your problem with its usage is you don’t know how it’s used in America, but the only time non-women are called bitches in the USA is if you’re trying to insult them by saying they’re ACTING like women.

I bowed out of this very quickly when it blew up. Anger trampled reason on both sides so I stayed quiet. It would be nice if both sides could at least try to talk it out reasonably. However if one more upper-middle class person, who comes from a culture full of books and access to higher education, who probably has always had expendable income and parents who can bail them out calls me- a semi-white, council-estate brought up, factory-fodder (un)educated male from a dead mill town- PRIVILEDGED I may fucking scream.

I don’t think that you’re a bad person for using these gendered insults, but I don’t think you understand why feminists are opposed to it. When you make a word that has an explicitly gendered connotation into an insult, you’re making that gender an insult. There is an implied edge to it that being a woman is an undesired thing. That is sexist. That just isn’t debatable, just by definition that is sexist language. Using the term “pussy” — which is also gendered — as an insult, is also sexist language. Using sexist language does not necessary make you a sexist, but it does mean you’re using sexist language which is very hurtful towards people who have been the victim of it in the past.

Imagine that a lot of the time you assert yourself to men, they call you a “bitch” or say you’re “bitching” or being “bitchy.” That term becomes part of a strategy to systematically marginalize your intellectual force. You start to associate it with an extremely hurtful, diminishing pattern of behavior. It isn’t surprising then, that every time you hear it, it cuts you deep and reminds you of the ways that you’ve been marginalized. This is where women are when it comes to sexist language.

As far as the privileged thing goes, when someone says you have male privilege, they are right. Men have advantages over women, many of which are empirically established. Men interrupt women more in conversations to a ridiculous degree. Men make more money. Men are the perpetrators of violence against everyone (men and women) far more often than woman are. These are facts that you just have to deal with, to deny them puts you on the level of a global warming denier.

That isn’t to say that in spite of these advantages you’re granted in some situations that life is easy for you or that you’re on the top of the social ladder. Money is one of the most important determinants for a person’s place in society. That doesn’t mean that men don’t have privileged advantages over women.

Privilege is a multi-dimensional affair. Sex, sexual identity, gender identity, economic class, geographic location, religious status, attractiveness, general physical appearance, physical ability, etc. etc. etc. Privilege covers everything.

When a Social Justice advocate, feminist,etc. assumes you’ve had an easy life because you’re a male, they are wrong. Dead wrong. They’re missing the point, they’re examining one piece of your position in society and ignoring the rest. They’re trying to boil down a complex situation to one simple variable.

That does not mean that the “male” variable does not come with an advantage. It does. Nearly worldwide (if not actually).

“Don’t be a dick” is something both sides have tossed away in this debate. I’ve seen lots of ugly things said about feminists, and I’ve personally had lots of ugly things hurled at me BY social justice people.

I’ve asked questions, brought up concerns, and drawn out things I saw as contradictions. I haven’t always been right when doing so. But I have repeatedly been personally attacked for doing this.

Calling someone an “asshole” for being wrong is never OK. Personally attacking people isn’t an appropriate response to someone merely raising questions in an intellectual manner

It’s incredibly disappointing for me to try and engage with people on this because it almost always goes terribly.

“Wow Jason, you are really looking at this issue from one side only, and turning molehills into mountains.”

I used to think this too.

“Men may have some privileged advantages over women, but it would be disingenuous in the extreme to forget that women also have many privileges over men – ask any man who has gone through a divorce and custody battle or look at how people are more likely to be forgiving or giving to an attractive woman. A little bit of balance in your arguments would give them a lot more credibility.”

I don’t disagree that women have some advantages over men. And they’re more numerous than what most feminists will admit. The statement “men are privileged over women” doesn’t imply that men have no specific advantages, just that the advantages that men have over women tally greater than the advantages that women have over men. If you’d like to debate this point, you’ll have a tough time doing it. Empiricism, Science, and Skepticism are on the side of men having more power/status/wealth/privilege in society than women. If you disagree, you simply need to do more research (and from better sources). I can’t compromise on fact.

It is a fact that we’ve never had a female president or vice president. It is a fact that women make less than 80% of what men do in the same positions. CEOs are predominantly men. Women do more of the housework than men do — even in co-breaderwinner households. If you want to have this debate, we can do it elsewhere, but I’d gladly have it with you. Men having standing over women isn’t controversial.

“And please stop building mountains out of the molehill of verbal insult. I have said this on other forums (Thunderf00t’s brief stay on FTB for example), but it is impossible to give offence, it is only possible to take offence. If you find something offensive about the term ‘bitch’ etc, it’s because you have chosen to take offence at the term, not because of any inherent offensiveness with the word. You could call me a bitch or a pussy all you like and I would just laugh at you. My wife would react in the same way (she is here right now so I am not putting words in her mouth). She thinks you are way off the mark with your views that somehow calling someone a ‘bitch’ or a ‘pussy’ cuts all women deeply. It doesn’t. It only cuts those who choose to be cut by it. And if feminists are opposed to it then that is their problem – they need to get a bit of perspective, something that many feminists lack (can you think of any at FTB for example?).

And please don’t try and shut down debate by categorically stating “That is sexist… That just isn’t debateable…”. It is debateable and it is only in your mind that the issue is clear cut. I am going to suggest that many people – myself included – happen to think that it is debateable, and that language in and of itself cannot be sexist – it is only the spin and intent with which words are used that are sexist. ‘Pussy’ is not a gendered word at all – and can mean a small cat. And to use it to imply someone is a bit of a wimp is not gendered either.”

You’re welcome to think that it is debatable. You’re not even wrong if you disagree with me, nor am I trying to shut down debate. The point you’re missing here is that I never said that all women are deeply hurt by being called a bitch (I did make a few ambiguous statements that could be taken that way, so let me take this attempt to clarify: not all women are offended by behavior, language, attitudes, or actions that are sexist) nor is this about offense.

The issue is that “bitch, pussy, slut, and whore” have pervasive cultural meanings. They have a history of usage. That history of usage is more important than your opinion on them, or my opinion, or anyone’s opinion. That history of usage, the cultural context, and how women — by and large — feel about the issue is what makes using those words counterproductive. You’re hurting the feelings of, marginalizing, and alienating people when you do that. Maybe you don’t care about the damage that you’re doing, but you’re still doing damage.

You might say that a lot of gender inequality issues are in the past however, you have to remember that just recently was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed, that happened under the President who is still in offive now. And in addition women were only granted the right to vote about ~90 years ago. Abortion rights are a recent thing, there are women still alive today from the period where working-wives was a taboo phenomenon. Serious gender oppression isn’t as ancient as you probably think.

Do you know what the number one slur used against men is? “Creep.” Recent surveys have confirmed this fact. Nothing hurts men, on average, more than being called creepy or a creep. Imagine you’re chatting up a woman who you’re interested in, being polite and showing your interest in short bursts, and she says you’re creepy. It hurts to have that kind of stain on your record, it says bad things about you, you start to wonder what you’ve done wrong or what kind of a reflection that is on you as a person. Did you choose to be offended there?

No. People don’t choose to be offended, offense is an emotional reaction — those are automatic. Sure, we can choose what to make of our emotions, but we can’t control them overtly. One does not choose to fall in love or to like a certain food or to find certain people attractive. You claim that people choose to be offended, but do you really choose to find the things objectionable that you do about feminism? No. You feel them on a certain subconscious level.

People don’t choose their gut reactions, and you’re invoking them in other people when you use gendered insults. When you can reasonably predict that someone will be offended by your behavior and it’s easy to avoid that offense without inconveniencing yourself, accommodate. That’s all I’m asking for.

This isn’t unreasonable. Feminists are giving you a roadmap on how to communicate with them better so that you don’t invoke negative reactions in them. Are you really mad because they’re telling you how to communicate more effectively to them and many other women? They’re helping you out.

“I don’t take offence at someone being called a ‘dick’ or a ‘cock’, or to accuse someone of being ‘macho’; which by your definition are gendered insults and should upset me. To suggest that women should take offence at ‘bitch’, ‘pussy’ or even ‘cunt’ is equally fatuous.”

The term “dick” hasn’t been used, for a very long time, to marginalize women. It isn’t the same, let me give you an example: I don’t mind being called “cracker” but that doesn’t give me permission to toss “nigger” out whenever I feel like it. I’m not offended at people calling me whitey, does that mean I get to randomly toss “wetback” in my everyday usage?

The thing is, people aren’t telling you that you can’t use gender insults. None of us are in favor of taking away your right to use that language. We’re merely asking you not to use it because it hurts people and serves no utility whatsoever. There’s no reason why you need to use sexist language. You could expunge it from your vocabulary for the sake of women — a disadvantaged group — and make the world a bit better for other people with little to no sacrifice. There are other words you can use in its place.

You may think “Well, I don’t have to do that. I shouldn’t have to bend over backwards for other people’s comfort.” And you’re kind of right. You don’t have to do that. But I don’t have to like your inability to make a simplistic compromise for the better of some women. I don’t have to like you, and neither do those women. I don’t have to read your blog, buy your books, listen to your lectures, etc. None of us do.

In the simplest terms, these feminist reformers are simply asking men in the skeptical movement to be more considerate. They’re doing it in a very poor way — I’m not even perfect at that — but that’s all they’re really doing. They’re asking for some small sacrifices, and people are in turn comparing them to nazis or sending them death threats, telling them that if they go to TAM they will violently sexually assault them, etc.

Even if none of my arguments convince you, the way your fellow men are treating women SHOULD convince you. Rebecca Watson — hate her if you want, I don’t care for her personally — is so fearful for her personal safety that she chose not to attend TAM. MANY other women chimed-in in agreement. People are scared. And it isn’t irrational to be scared when outspoken women are getting violent death threats simply for having a different opinion than most men do on the subject.

In recent days I’ve seen Richard Dawkins heckle a Skepchick funded free-vaccinations charity event. Some women left TAM early due to harassment on Twitter only to be mocked for doing so. What bad has happened to men? What horrible things have we faced? Criticism?

You guys say you’re interested in compromise and finding a way to bridge our differences, but men are not the ones suffering here nor are the anti-feminists. The majority of men who are upset are upset because people are saying things they don’t like, whereas women are being bullied and intimidated out of the movement by violent threats.

Do you really believe that women are willing to suffer for their opinions on matter if nothing is at stake for them? We lose nothing by keeping this divide going, but they’re fighting hard because the outcome matters tremendously to them. It determines their future comfort, marketability, and place in the skeptical movement.

This is serious shit.

Small aside – I always assumed the insult “pussy” derived from the somewhat dated term for “cat” or “kitten”, so calling someone a pussy was comparing them to a small furry creature who needs constant stroking and taking care of.

…

Ah, I’ve only just realised how filthy that sounds. I regret nothing.

In reference to the “sexist language” issue…it would be good for BOTH sides to bear two things in mind. First is that there are words and terms that the other side may find offensive and off-putting, and it’s best to make an effort to avoid them, at least until some better accord is reached. Second is to realize the other side is bound to slip up from time to time, as they’re only human, and it’s best to forgive, or politely ask for clarification, or take a moment to educate them, or even let it slide in the service of a greater good. (“I’m sorry, you said (x), and you should realize that some find that offensive. I realize you didn’t mean to be offensive, but I just thought you should know.”) And perhaps a third: To take being educated/corrected with grace and humor.

Sadly, my cynical side fears that both sides would walk into a discussion with chips on their shoulders…or at least certain people would…and squabbles would break out over words and phrasing before any progress is made….

I am impressed by what you are trying to do here, CLS.
My second thought was to wonder about your chances of a good-faith response from those you are addressing who might prefer for their own reasons to ignore or vilify it. Sadly, Ms. Benson’s knee-jerk reaction exemplifies this perfectly. It’s as if she is doing her best to create a real world image of John Irving’s fictional Ellen Jamesian Society. The point of which, clearly, was to illustrate that there’s simply no reaching some closed minds until they work through their own issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Jamesian

Thank you for your kind words.

The thing about gendered language is that our claims regarding it are never made very clearly. When feminists (including myself) talk about gendered languaget, we’re not speaking of how any one person responds to it. We’re making a statement about how female-gendered language being used as an insult on a cultural level is having negative repercussions for women in our society. And when we implore people to move away from that, we aren’t asking them to completely shed their usage so much as make an attempt to curb it — especially in serious, skeptical, or public discussions.

I still say “cunt,” “bitch,” “slut,” and “whore” in some circumstances, I just try to do it around personal company and such. And although I avoid making public rape jokes now, I still do it in private with some close friends. Feminists aren’t trying to police what you do with your life overall, they’re trying to make you reconsider what you do in terms of public-face in order to shift our overall cultural configuration towards being a place that’s friendlier towards women.

Unfortunately we don’t always do a very good job of making clear just how voluntary this is. I understand that we come off as totalitarian at times, I do, but that’s more of a communication problem than it is a rhetorical problem.

Take the famous Elevatorgate incident. Rebecca Watson famously said “guys, don’t do that.” What she should’ve said was, “If men avoided that behavior, it would make women feel much more welcome conventions, I think. I’m asking all of my male listeners to consider how they treat single, vulnerable women for the good of the movement.” The difference is tonal, but it’s much more easy to stomach due to the fact that the latter is making a request of you and the former is making a demand.

Feminists very much have a communication problem, and when we have people who disagree with us, it seems that the majority of us immediately jump into accusations of sexism. What we observe isn’t sexist most of the time though, it’s privilege: ignorance at the situation because it isn’t something men have to experience. There’s nothing wrong with that, it isn’t people’s fault who experience that, and we need to be gentle with those people.

***

Mini rant incoming: “misogyny” and its various forms, are probably the most over-applied terms in this debate.

Misogynist presupposes internal feelings about women as a whole that the men involved have, namely hatred. When someone refuses to stop using gendered language or even making sexist conclusions about women, that doesn’t mean they hate them. One can have extreme regressive views about people without hating them, the whole notion of women as the “softer, more emotional sex, less logical” is sexist, but far from hatred. A lot of men venerate that and love that stereotype — they don’t look down on women for their perceived (incorrectly) differences, but appreciate it.

The Feminists who lob “misogynist” about rarely have cause to do so. Hatred of women is a difficult thing to prove or even find general evidence that causes you to reasonably assume it.

When feminists use hyperbolic language like misogynist in rational communities like ours, they’re doing themselves a disservice.

Jason: –I still say “cunt,” “bitch,” “slut,” and “whore” in some circumstances–

Why use any of these words for anything other than what they originally meant?
Why use them as insults at all? Why use insults? Why sucn immaturity? And then have the gall to lecture the rest of the world on how should not use ‘gendered language’?

Jason: -I avoid making public rape jokes now, I still do it in private-
I can’t say I’ve ever heard a funny rape joke. But again why say in private what you think should not be done in public?

Does the word hypocritical mean anything to you?