Greta Christina preaches it:
It’s depressingly predictable. When an instance of misogyny gets pointed out on the Internet, in a forum big enough to garner more than a couple dozen comments, you’re almost guaranteed to see some or all of these types of comments. It’s happening now. In case you haven’t heard, there was a recent incident on Reddit/ atheism, in which a 15-year-old girl posted a photo of herself holding a copy of Carl Sagan’s Demon-haunted World that her mother had given her for Christmas… and was almost immediately targeted with a barrage of sexualized, dehumanizing, increasingly violent and brutal comments. Including, “Well 15 is legal in many places, including my country, so I’ll only have to deal with abduction charges.” “Relax your anus, it hurts less that way.” “Blood is mother nature’s lubricant.” “Tears, natures lubricant.” “BITE THE PILLOW, IM GOIN’ IN DRY!” And including comments blaming the girl for posting a picture of herself in the first place. Rebecca Watson and others — including Stephanie Zvan, Ed Brayton, Jason Thibeault,Jen McCreight, John Loftus, and Ophelia Benson — have been pointing out how revoltingly misogynistic this is and why. And the “Yes, but…”s have been coming thick and fast. It’s depressingly predictable. And it’s depressing that anyone should have to explain why this is a problem. It seems totally obvious to me. But apparently, it’s not so obvious. So I’m going to spell it out. When the topic of misogyny comes up, and men change the subject, it trivializes misogyny. When the topic of misogyny comes up, and men change the subject, it conveys the message that whatever men want to talk about is more important than misogyny. When the topic of misogyny comes up, and men change the subject to something that’s about them, it conveys the message that men are the ones who really matter, and that any harm done to men is always more important than misogyny. And when the topic of misogyny comes up, and men change the subject, it comes across as excusing misogyny.
#heblowsalot update: the fallout
Both the principal, Karl Krawitz, and Emma Sullivan are receiving all kinds of negative attention as result of the Brownback apology affair. Krawitz has apparently received some death threats from different parts of the country, while Sullivan is being bullied by peers who call her an attention whore, or just a whore, and demand that she be expelled from school
The bullying, much of which is taking place on Twitter, is part of the reason that Sullivan was staying home from school on Tuesday. “They’ve been sending me tweets, calling me an attention whore, saying this is all about fame and that I don’t deserve to be getting any of these interviews,” she said. A Twitter hashtag set up against her contains numerous expletives, including one user, @PoundShop_Zoe, who calls her a “whore” multiple times. “When Emma Comes back she should be forced to go to north #HopeYourHappy… Whore,” he writes. “Get Emma Sullivan out of East [Shawnee Mission East High School] please #teamkrawitz,” adds @megmms. In fact, students have organized a rally Tuesday afternoon in support of her principal, Karl Krawitz, and in opposition to her, said Sullivan.
I’m actually more surprised by this bullying than by the death threats. Death threats from far-off places have become a ubiquitous response to any bad behavior that is published on the internet. There never seems to be a shortage of people with web access who find it appropriate to express their displeasure with someone in the news for doing a bad thing by issuing threats against that person’s life, and that’s probably all that this is. I assume however that this knowledge, even if Dr. Krawitz has it, is of no particular comfort to him.
The behavior of Sullivan’s schoolmates is surprising only because they are easily identifiable and close. I imagine that they are jealous of her limelight, however unintentionally earned, and also convinced that the school principal is someone who must be respected at all costs. They are probably big “school spirit” types who believe that their collective reputation has been tarnished by a student saying rude things about the governor and drawing negative attention to the school as a whole…even though it was actually the principal’s demand for a letter of apology that thrust this situation into the news in the first place.
And they are incapable of recognizing that Krawitz might be a good principal who made a very bad decision, much less that believing he’s a good principal doesn’t require saying that Sullivan is a whore who should be expelled. That requires a level of nuance that appears to be quite beyond them. As is, ironically, an awareness of how public speech on the internet really can be– something Sullivan will now likely never forget.
If Sam Brownback really wanted to show that he “treasures” freedom of speech, he could send a message directly to these students in support of Sullivan and strongly condemning any harassment of her for her use of and defense of that freedom. Want to make any bets on whether something like that will happen?
Update
…on the April 18th beating of a trans woman at McDonald’s in Maryland:
From dallasvoice:
Teona Brown, 19, has pled guilty Thursday, Aug. 4, to first degree assault charges and a hate crime charge in connection with the beating of transgender woman Chrissy Polis last April in Towson, Md. The attack was captured on video by a McDonald’s employee — who filmed the assault rather than step in and try to stop it — last April. The video went viral online and was used, along with new footage from a surveillance camera, in court hearings this week. CBS Baltimore has this report on the plea. Conviction on a first degree assault charge carries a maximum sentence of 25 years, and a hate crime conviction could add another 10 years. Because Brown pled guilty to the attack, prosecutors are recommending that the judge sentence her to five years in prison. A sentencing hearing has been set for next month. Polis was present in court on Thursday, but told reporters she was nervous about being there and had no comment. “I just want to lay low and keep my life as normal as possible,” she said. A second person charged in the attack was 14 at the time and has been charged with assault as a juvenile. Because she is a minor, her identity has not been released.
“….Seriously?” Part: the end
…and cue the inevitable “Can’t we all just get along?” post.
Hemant Mehta does a good job of summarizing the whole very high-school situation, though I’m not sure what the point is with the whole “Female 1” and “Female 2” thing. If you’re interested, read.
Interest in attending any future skeptic/atheist conferences: pretty much nil.
“…Seriously?” part 2
Somebody purporting to be Richard Dawkins apparently made some rather idiotic comments on Pharyngula of the “people have it worse than you, so how dare you complain about your own situation” variety, and Jen McCreight rightly excoriates him (or his impersonator) for it. For reference on these remarks, see this.
Whether that was actually Dawkins or not, I think there’s a pretty obvious take-home lesson: nobody, however fiercely they might like to proclaim it, is on the side of rationality and immune to bigotry simply because they might be a loud proponent of skepticism on a subject where most people reject it. Their courage and eloquence on such matters does not make them infallible. They’re as susceptible to bias as anyone else, only they come pre-packaged with an iron-clad resistance to any suggestion of non-objectivity and therefore become, ironically, decidedly anti-skeptical about their own skepticism. Humility should be skepticism’s best friend, not its nemesis.
Update
Terry Jones is on trial this morning by a Michigan jury which is going to decide whether or not he can protest at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn without having paid a $100,000 “peace bond.” If that makes you do a double-take and say “Whaa?” I’m right there with you.
If it doesn’t, here’s why it should: the content of Jones’ speech is irrelevant to the matter of whether he should be allowed to protest. The Supreme Court has determined this time and time again. So long as his protest is peaceful he has a right to do it, and you cannot attempt to prevent someone from exercising their rights by charging them an enormous amount of money to do so. Ed at Dispatches writes:
All of this is blatantly unconstitutional. The boundaries of the First Amendment are not determined by juries. And the practice of requiring those who wish to protest to put up bonds before holding controversial protests was declared unconstitutional decades ago by federal courts. This principle goes back to the civil rights era, when cities run by racist leaders who wanted to prevent legitimate civil rights marches would try to charge those who organized those protests for the extra police protection needed to keep them safe from the KKK and others who might react violently to them. That it now involves someone who preaches against civil rights for Muslims is not a legally relevant difference; the government must protect the right to protest and protect those who engage in protest from violent reaction no matter how heinous the message of the protest may be. . . No matter what the jury decides tomorrow, the state court’s ruling is baffling and almost certain to be struck down by a higher court if challenged.
The ACLU supports Jones’ right to protest, and so do more Dearbon Muslims:
Majed Moughni, a Dearborn attorney, agrees that Jones has the right to protest. Moughni is not a fan of Jones, having burned him in effigy last year outside his Dearborn home because he had threatened to burn the Quran. Jones later oversaw the burning of a Quran last month. But Moughni says it’s wrong for the city and county to try to hinder Jones’ rights. Moughni added that this is turning Jones into a hero. “Instead of him being the bad guy, now he’s the hero,” Moughni said. “They’ve turned him into a hero of the First Amendment.” “The prosecutors should withdraw their demands and let him speak as he wishes, which is his right under the Constitution.”
Update: According to the Detroit Free Press,
A Dearborn jury just sided with prosecutors, ruling that Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp would breach the peace if they rallied at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn
Follow-up: Jesus Chicken edition
I wrote before about how the conservative Christian-affiliated chicken chain Chik-Fil-A has received some very negative feedback about their contributions toward anti-gay political causes. Here’s the latest on that:
Focus St. Louis and the Clayton Chamber of Commerce said today that they are canceling a planned presentation by Dan Cathy, president and COO of Chick-fil-A, following complaints that Cathy and his company are involved with anti-gay organizations. . . The decision to cancel Cathy’s March 18 presentation here was made after PROMO, a statewide organization that advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality, protested his appearance and asked Focus and the Chamber of Commerce to reconsider. Ellen Gale, the head of the chamber, said today that when the groups agreed to co-sponsor Cathy’s appearance, they had no idea he held controversial views. “We are a pro-diversity culture here and certainly don’t want to offend anyone,” Gale said. “We didn’t know anything about this when he was booked.”
Equality Matters replies (I paraphrase) “Damn skippy,” and lists extensive documentation of everything they dug up on Chik-Fil-A’s contributions and communications.
More follow-up: the difference between neutrality and objectivity
Journalist Lauri Lebo wrote a book about Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the 2005 creationism case which occurred in her home state of Pennsylvania. Prior to the actual court battle she had been covering the situation locally in newspapers, reporting on what transpired at school board meetings and such. During and after the trial, however, she was accused by her newspaper editor of failing to be properly objective because she noted when creationist members of the school board perjured themselves on the stand and when their arguments were blasted out of the water by legal and scientific authorities. Her editor, you see, actually wanted her to be neutral— to present both sides as if they were equally legitimate. But they weren’t, and writing as if they were would constitute a failure to present the story factually. Journalists are supposed to gather different perspectives on the stories they tell, but they should not be expected to be neutral. Lebo expresses this concept beautifully in The Devil in Dover: objective reporting is not treating both sources as legitimate if one source has the truth on its side and the other is full of crap. Objectivity is not making sure you include some nonsense to balance out your sense, or vice versa. It’s being as truthful as possible, no matter who that bothers.
That’s the problem I have with this response from the New York Times to the “outrage” about the original McKinley story on the gang rape in Cleveland, Texas– it acknowledges simply that the story “lacked a critical balancing element.” That it contained no quotes of someone sympathizing with the victim rather than the perpetrators. That it wasn’t neutral. And yes, the story would have been better if it had included some of those quotes, rather than giving the impression that nobody in Cleveland cares about the girl who was raped, as I surely hope is not the case. It would have come closer to representing the truth. But the truth itself isn’t neutral. The truth is that it’s called rape for a reason, and that is that the victim is never to blame, even slightly. It seems extra abhorrent because the girl was only eleven years old, but this would be just as true if they had gang-raped a twenty-eight year old woman. That’s a fact that might have escaped a number of people in the Cleveland area, but it ought to be expressed overtly by someone reporting on the situation objectively: “Somebody in this story suggested something that isn’t true. Here are the actual facts.” And don’t tell me that reporters have an obligation to keep their opinions out of their stories– that might be true, but the law is not a matter of opinion, and the law says that it doesn’t matter what the girl was wearing or how much makeup she had on, why she was in a dangerous part of town, or where her parents were. If she was raped, she was raped, and that is entirely the fault of the men and boys who perpetrated it. Period.
Should we, as a readership, have known this full well and not have needed to have it pointed out to us? Yes, absolutely. But clearly that’s not the case– not if anyone from Cleveland (for example) reads the New York Times. I would say that they should, except that apparently they won’t find any corrections on their misconceptions there. At least, not today.
Follow-up: New York Times responds to complaints about their reporting
…poorly:
The Times responded Wednesday evening to The Cutline: “Neighbors’ comments about the girl, which we reported in the story, seemed to reflect concern about what they saw as a lack of supervision that may have left her at risk,” said Danielle Rhoades Ha, a spokeswoman for the paper. “As for residents’ references to the accused having to ‘live with this for the rest of their lives,’ those are views we found in our reporting. They are not our reporter’s reactions, but the reactions of disbelief by townspeople over the news of a mass assault on a defenseless 11-year-old.”
With all due respect, Ms. Ha, I think you kind of missed the point.
More Savage loving
Conversation continues about interpretation of Dan Savage’s sexual ethics. Savage himself responds to Lindsay Beyerstein thusly:
Terry and I wouldn’t describe ourselves as monogamous-apart-from-an-occassional because we wouldn’t—couldn’t—feel comfortable using the word “monogamous” in reference to ourselves, not even monogamous-with-an-asterisks, because technically we’re, you know, not. But we kindasorta hate the term non-monogamous because when a gay couple describes themselves as non-monogamous people—gay and straight—assume a degree of promiscuousness that 1. we wouldn’t be comfortable engaging in and 2. we’re not actually engaging in. People don’t make the same assumption about non-monogamous straight couples because it’s generally more difficult for straight people to get laid. That’s why we usually describe our loving, bill-paying, childrearing life partnership as “monogamish.” Mostly monogamous but stuff happens. Some other stuff. Sometimes. Not all the times. It’s a term that I’d like to popularize. Our monogamish relationship—and I suspect that we’re not the only monogamish couple out there—has allowed us to integrate “sexual fulfillment with the other good things in life” quite nicely, thanks.
On Big Think, Dueholm complains that Savage doesn’t hold up monogamy as an ideal. He’s right– Savage doesn’t, because he clearly doesn’t think it is ideal. He doesn’t say it’s something for which we all should strive, but if we fail it’s understandable. He says that it isn’t necessarily something we should all strive for, period. We should strive for what we want, and not everybody wants monogamy.