Beating the Dead Horse of Sexism in Secularism

It’s good to treat people as people, but erasing gender is like erasing ethnicity. You can still tromp all over someone by pretending their unique identity doesn’t exist.

  No, the solution is that if someone is an unmitigated ass you don’t book them to speak.   The problem seems to be that people want to utilize their fame while at the same time expecting them to behave the way they expect them to behave.  If their fame is so important than I suggest folks stop wearing their feelings on their sleeves and just ignore their behavior.

I’m always a bit skeptical of the pervasive claims of sexism in any group or by a group against another.  I certainly believe that it happens but my experience has been that most of the ones I’ve actually either been a witness to or have been able to follow up on are not sexist but individuals being rude and they happen to be male and they happen to have offended a female in the interaction.  They were rude and obnoxious to many people but the one involving a female is the particular example brought to the lime light and used as an example of sexism when it was really just another example of an asshat being an asshat.

Karsh

“This means calling people out on their offensive behavior as it happens, not weeks or months afterwards.”

I would like to know who you expect to call out the offensive behavior is at happens rather than weeks or months afterwards. I hope you don’t mean women who have been been sexually harassed. Being touched inappropriately or verbally harassed can be quite traumatic and not every woman can process what happen or emotionally deal with the situation immediately after it has happened. Some fear for their careers and livelihood if they decide to speak out. I speak from experience. 

Thanks for the link to Stephanie Zvan.  It was rather insightful.

Don’t forget, it’s not only important to commit as a group to being inclusive of everyone and calling out those who are failing at that, but to commit to being non-reactionary when someone calls us on our shit. One of the biggest issues I’ve seen in the community is not just that sexism/racism happens, but that when someone points out something they think is wrong *cough* elevatorgate, people all of the sudden go batshit insane and start yelling “femnazi”.

So I propose that if someone tells you you’re messing up, don’t just start defending yourself. Think about about it, consider it, and have an damn conversation about it. Even if, in the end, you don’t think you were wrong, you can at least learn something about another person and you won’t come off as such a butthole.

I agree.  I know there are good reasons for harassment victims not to speak out (who wants to deal with that sort of backlash), but it’s really the only way that the average skeptic who’s not a convention organizer or in a position to hear this stuff is going to know which famous skeptics are worth supporting.

Any community must have rules (although they need not necessarily be written down; they certainly weren’t for the bulk of human history), and sanctions when those rules are broken. Saying we shouldn’t shame the people who misbehave is eliminating one of the most important ties that bind communities together. Singing kumbaya and asking nicely for people to behave is good and all, but haven’t we been doing this already? Yes, we have. The vast majority of humanists behave (mostly) correctly at events like this. And they certainly speak out when people misbehave (the torrents of nasty comments made against Dawkins when he made somewhat insensitive remarks in the wake of Elevatorgate speaks volumes here).

Yes, it’s better when the behaviour is sanctioned as it happens. But humans are not pets. We don’t have to catch people in the act to sanction them when they act-out. We can look at the evidence, and if the evidence is solid, call out the offenders, even if the act(s) were committed some time ago.

Shame is not a dirty word. Priests who diddle young children should be shamed. Guys who sexually harrass women at conventions should, as well. The difference is in degree, not in nature.
 

“the ones I’ve actually either been a witness to or have been able to
follow up on are not sexist but individuals being rude and they happen
to be male and they happen to have offended a female in the interaction.”

Just what makes you such an expert in sexism that you are so much better qualified to judge what does and does not constitute sexist behaviour than the women who experience this behaviour? I’m assuming you’re a man from the general smug asshatness of your comment.

I never claimed to be an expert, I just related what my experience had been.  Having been the victim of sexual harassment in the work place though, I think I have an “on point” opinion.  Being a victim doesn’t make one an expert though either. 

I won’t assume your gender despite your antagonistic response giving a huge hint.  Are you saying that as a male I am incapable of having a valid or worthwhile opinion on the topic? 

Karsh

It’s all relative.  Apparently some people find being asked out on a date on an elevator to be significant harassment.

“I never claimed to be an expert, I just related what my experience had been.”

Bullshit, you claimed to know better than the women who’s experiences you were talking about.

“I won’t assume your gender despite your antagonistic response giving a huge hint”

Go on give it a try

You’re right it is all relative,  just like everything else is.

What the heck is MRA?  You keep throwing that around.  Music Recording Association?

Alone. At 4 a.m. Deliberately trapped with no escape possible. By someone who prefaced his dumbass remark with ‘don’t take this the wrong way’ – meaning he KNEW he was acting like a dumbass.

but, keep minimizing and dismissing.  Assuming you want to respect or credibility, that is.

 No bullshit, I never claimed to be an expert.  I just stated my skepticism.  You can actually read my previous posts for yourself again if necessary. 

I see no point in guessing at this point.  Simply because I’m skeptical I’m a “smug asshat.”  My successful or unsuccessful guess would support neither your point or mine.   Your attitude is already a total and complete justification for my skepticism.  Once the sexism card has been played (whether valid or invalid) rational, detached and meaningful debate is virtually impossible.  Men are pigs, women are gold-diggers and we all need to get our pitchforks and find the nearest tree. 

Again I would ask are you attempting to say that as a male I am incapable of having a valid or worthwhile opinion on this specific topic? 

Karsh

 While you may certainly may be correct, can you say how you know this was a “deliberate” act to trap someone “with no escape possible?”  Of the numerous descriptions I’ve read of the incident I can find no malicious or predatory intents communicated by this individual.  I see many and numerous accusations but nothing that could be considered objective.  He simple chose a very poor place in which to make a pass.  Sophomoric surely but predatory very unlikely.  

Acting like a dumbass (which I agree he did in this specific incident) isn’t sexist, it’s being a dumbass.  Neither of which should be goals for individual behavior but which are certainly miles apart on the offensive meter. 

Karsh

Thanks for this response Bruce. May I also add “after having said publicly in a talk hours earlier at the same convention that she doesn’t like to be hit on at conferences”?

But Wild Rumpus knows all that and doesn’t give a fuck cos we are just supposed to lie back and take whatever A Man decides to dish out. No complaints now because A Man might just be misunderstood. No need to get all hysterical and shit.

Men’s Rights Activist

“You are certainly behaving like an antagonistic asshat.” I just don’t have much patience for this kind of bigoted crap anymore

I have also been a victim of sexual harassment in many of it’s heinous forms, though that hardly makes either you or I an expert on the subject. My greatest hope is that victims would call out offenders as soon as they possibly can when they are uncomfortable. And hopefully, with the support of the community, that can happen sooner rather than later.

THIS. So much this. I think skeptics are particularly bristly when they find out they are wrong. Being wrong is a large part of life, it turns out.

 I understand that there may be some broad differences between the genders, but I also understand that most people don’t fall into any/all of the stereotypes attached to their gender. I try to treat people like individuals first.

Even if you aren’t a humanist, you can still understand that women are people and deserve to be treated as such. It’s not that difficult of a concept.

You keep claiming that Karsh is claiming expert knowledge, when in fact that was explicitly disclaimed. Karsh is claiming the position of a neutral, unattached observer. Usually, when sexism is claimed, the claimant is emotionally involved and thus has an inaccurate view of what just happened. A third party who observed the alleged sexism firsthand has a better chance of determining whether or not it’s actually motivated by the sex or gender of the offended party.

I don’t think they will. That would be giving you exactly what you’re looking for.

Alcohol isn’t a problem if you hold people personally responsible for how much they drink and how they let it affect them. If you let people get away with bad choices because they chose to let their judgment be impaired, then you have a problem.

 I would certainly say that could both be present in the same individual and instance.  I’m just pointing out that one doesn’t necessarily equal the other. 

Karsh

 Claiming that whomever is involved is less able to define their experience because they are “emotional” completely invalidates the experience to begin with. You cannot claim to be a part of the solution all the while decrying people who have experienced the problem.

 I don’t mean they should get away with it.  I meant that alcohol and being in a hotel may contribute to the problem more than secularness.  Seems to be some surprise, that this happens at secular events.

 I might agree with you. I might disagree with you. I’m not sure – could you further explain what you mean by humanist and anti-humanist? I’m not getting what you are saying.

And a good skeptic wants to know if they’re wrong as soon as possible.

I said that most of the incidents I’ve either been a witness to or been able to follow up on have not been as portrayed by those claiming offense.  There was either much more to the story (generally not in their favor) that either ruled their entire complaint false (lying or mistaken) or in at one occasion was a rejected sexual partner. 

I claim that a disinterested third party often sees things in a less emotionally charged point of view.  That both sides of story must be taken into account.  Just as a man doesn’t get a pass on being a sexist pig a woman doesn’t get to have her claim substantiated simply because she’s female and making a sexism claim.  Evidence must support her claim.  I also feel that it’s possible for someone to take offense but to not have been the victim of sexism.  At what point does a pass become sexist?  There isn’t a clear and objective answer, which means that intent by the person is an important contributing factor.   

Again I never claimed to be an expert.  I just claimed to have what I believe to be a well reasoned opinion based on logic and reason.  You appear to have nothing but a poor ability to insult and curse as a response. 

Karsh

The question at hand is not who is offended but who was sexist and who was the victim.  Since this is a subjective issue and no objective definition can be used as a standard the participants should not be the deciding factors in guilt or innocence.  

Karsh

Anon Atheist wasn’t saying otherwise. I think it’s a fair point to make that atheist humanist, even if it is only tangential to the article.

 I fail to understand where you get this idea that  “part of feminism […] is anti-humanist.” I consider myself both a feminist and a humanist.  I honestly see them as simultaneously complementary and synonymous. I don’t like being wrong in my opinions,  so please do explain your perspective here so I may better understand it.

Whether or not the offended party is offended is a completely separate issue from whether or not sexism was a motivating factor in the offense. It’s called illusory correlation, and is a significant portion of why couples who are having trouble go to licensed therapists who can act as impartial observers.

Nobody, man, woman or Bruce Campbell, is in a position to think entirely rationally when personally offended. You might wish otherwise (I certainly do), but wishing otherwise doesn’t make it so. So yes, an impartial observer is the best person to determine whether an offense was motivated by sexism.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-illusory-correlation.htm

One thing I liked about this article was that it praised Rebecca’s response specifically for being appropriate even if the man in the elevator had the best intentions (and was just very, very wrong about what was appropriate).  Really, what she said actually was a pretty politely worded piece of advise on how not to look like a creep.  I think this approach is very important if the goal is to change behavior and not simply feel superior.  Thanks for the link!

I’ve been on the other end of that before.  I am a large man, and I clumsily tried to flirt in a very poorly thought out way.  It wasn’t until the next day when I realized how terrible a position I put the woman in, and how an awkward nerd who doesn’t think things through and a rapist look about the same.  This all happened long ago, when I wasn’t even out of school, and it was really creepy to so many young men have the exact opposite reaction to a woman being made uncomfortable and unsafe.  You’re not a terrible person for making a mistake, but the right thing to do at that point is acknowledge it and not make it again.  The silliest part of the whole thing is that propositioning women in an elevator at night is not only scary, it also doesn’t make women want to spend time with you.  For a nice guy who cares about women, being less scary is win/win

My question though is if one’s innate empathy tells them that the complainant is a hyper sensitive twit or someone who’s just looking for something to be offended about. 

Hmm, I see the “or” there, but the 2 options you describe seem about the same 🙂

I think you’ve neglected to mention the possibility that the complainant is neither of those things 🙂

 “Listen to women and give the narratives of their experiences respect.”

That was never a problem in my case – I do that already, but as amycas said above, it’s on the basis of the individual.  I listen to and consider the words of women (and men, because we are all absolute equals and because to do otherwise would be sexist in the other direction) because female people are unique individuals like myself. 

Humans are pattern-seeking organisms and, as such, it’s easy to ascribe locally-observed trends to entire subsets (e.g. gender-based subsets) of the population.  The “some/few/most/all” distinction is too seldom highlighted and so otherwise-innocuous observations can easily become damaging overgeneralizations.  Overgeneralizations lead to stereotyped interactions and, from there, offense.  Likewise, it’s very difficult to deliberately ignore perceived patterns when interacting with others and instead regard everyone as an isolated entity.  I do think that it can be done, though; and when done properly, is a very effective countermeasure against both sexism and other types of prejudiced behavior as well.  Maybe it comes from being a Linux user – everything the hard way.

As for absorbing sexism from culture…while I cannot and will not deny that culture colors people’s perceptions, I also have to admit taking slight offense at the insinuation that I am incapable of rejecting that influence or helpless to overcome it, and thus bound to making constant efforts to resist it on a case-by-case basis.  Paired with, as well as contrasted against, my individualistic approach to interaction, I think these culturally-imbued assumptions can be rewritten permanently with the right methods and enough time; so that instead of having to check my responses and actions again and again as I interact with various people, my default mode of interaction will re-base itself on the assumption that both I and the person I’m interacting with are distinct, unique, and entirely equal individuals.

Just as we, as skeptics, speak of the ability of a person to independently reject notions of religious belief against the best efforts of preachers to indoctrinate them with those notions, I think we, as people, can independently reject concepts like “men are boorish and disrespectful” or “women are irrational and undependable” no matter how hard society tries to beat us over the head with them.  Sure, it’s possible for it to get into our heads early, when we’re kids and don’t know any better, but just as people from religious upbringings have embraced reality, people who were subjected to sexist cultural influence can embrace equality.  Culture, like religion, can have enormous influence but, like religion, can be defeated once the curtain falls and you see that the tenets are all just so much bullshit.

I beg to differ.  Claims that are generalized and not specific cannot be substantiated.  Thing like “all men are pigs” or “The Atheist movement has sexism issue.”  Accusation such as these are the equvilent to sayihng “always” or “never” and are unable to be substaintiated becasue of their vagueness. 

“Non-pervasive” claim as you put it can be investigated, substantiated, and acted on. 

Karsh

”  Those directly involved have a vested interest” Everyone has a vested interest you fucking moron yours is maintaining male privilege. Which is why you’re so determined to deny that women are capable judges of their experiences.

“The Atheist movement has a sexism issue.” Well you and your idiot friend DamnedScholar have pretty much substantiated this claim.

My god you’re a fucking moron, have I mentioned that already? Sorry if I’m repeating myself. Sexism is not academic, it is pervasive it is a fundamental and daily part of all women’s lives, it is epidemic and if you don’t see that it’s because either you don’t want to which makes you a total selfish asshole or you are incapable which makes you a total fucking moron. So which are you? Asshole or moron, perhaps a combination of the two.

You have an excellent ability to  dodge logic, invoke emotion and deflect responsibility but I’ve seen nothing but poor attempts at insults. 

You mean the ones where I call for a fair and reasoned viewing of the incident before casting judgement?  The one where I state that long standing rules of evidence should be applied and that both parties should be held to the same set of rules despite their gender? 

I never said that women are incapable of judging their own experiences.  I said that parties directly involved in an emotionally heated incident are not good sole witnesses to base a judgment upon. 

Please stop applying your emotional content to my statements. 

Karsh 

 No, it’s a matter of fact.  The difference here is that I understand the difference between a fact and an emotional tirade. 

Again, being offended isn’t sexism. 

Karsh

Again what makes you such an expert on sexism?

Of course you do. His inane sophomoric mansplanations are as pathetic and retrograde as yours.

You’ve been trying?

Karsh

Again, does it take you numerous attempts to be this inaccurate or are you capable of such massive feats of ignorance right out of the box?

Karsh

If we are going to take the “moral high ground” and call out other
groups over their repression of women and sexist behavior, we had better
damn well have our own house in order first.

This is just a suggestion, but perhaps this should be interpreted in part as a wake-up call that at least some of the rhetoric about religion and sexism may be factually incorrect. Maybe it’s not religion per se. Maybe it’s actually about people, and institutions, and entrenched power structures.

Could this be yet another opportunity for atheists and progressive theists to work together?

 Right. Myth. That part where she talks about what she doesn’t find flattering isn’t in there at all.