A rational response to sexism?
Offline Big controversy going on over sexism in the freethought/atheist community. Please read PZ, watch the video, and there's lots more if you want more context.
Now, I realize I'm a male, and accept that I probably have blind spots in regards to so-called 'privilege'.
However, I have a really hard time accepting PZ's advice of, literally, "SHUT UP AND LISTEN". I'm fine with the 'listen' thing. It's that whole 'shut up' thing that bugs me.
On one level, I have seen the effectiveness of using the 'privilege' argument. It works. I've seen it used to defend feminism, the LBGT movement, against racism, and lately it has been used effectively as a defense for unapologetic 'GNU' atheism.
On another level, it strikes me as a kind of fallacious argument. The fallacy goes something like this:
"You are privileged, being an X. You may not be overtly, consciously X-ist, but you aren't even aware of your privilege; you are blind to it. So just shut up. Every time you speak, you prove just how privileged you are, and it's shameful, so be ashamed." Etc. etc.
There's a kind of non-sequitur going on, IMHO. The privilege argument doesn't actually make a rational, evidence-based argument in favour of anti-X-ism, nor for 'shutting up'. It seems to me to be simply an emotional shame-based argument.
To be clear, it's not only in regards to feminism that I have this reaction, but also to the use of this argument in defense of unapologetic atheism. I see that it works, I just don't think it's a rational argument.
The unapologetic approach I've come to favour uses emotional tactics, such as shame and ridicule, but it always backs it up with a solid, rational, evidence-based argument.
I would like to know if there is an equivalent rational argument that could have been used during the episode in that video, or in the blogo-math afterwards, which amounts to more than "shut up and listen".
I'm picturing the upset woman, instead of (or in addition to) getting upset and leaving, standing there and making a sharp, rational response to that situation, such that it would have led to a more positive resolution than the blog-hah-hah that has erupted instead.
So, I'm going to try to shut up and listen, for the moment, just to try it out.
Here is the question, to anyone who thinks they have a good idea: What would be a good rational response to the situation in the video, that amounts to more than a) getting upset and leaving, b) saying, "Shut up and listen."?
(P.S. If I'm making it all worse with my privilege blindness, please spell out exactly where I've gone wrong.)
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
- Login to post comments
Well...I agree with you, really. The problem is people, PZ included, have now set up the debate in such a way that anything anyone says is wrong by default. I don't think that is fair of him.
On one hand, after some review, I can understand why the lady was upset. I can. However, the reaction from the 'blogosphere' was about as retarded as you can possibly get. Here are the real issues:
The panel had too many men for the topic.
The panel should have been more professional.
That's it.
Ok, so a shitty little panel at a shitty little convention didn't do a very good job on a discussion topic. Now whammo, massive walls of shit slinging. The suggestions at the end of this blog are good advice but the top part is full of over-reaction and gross mischaractarization of what actually took place. http://www.blaghag.com/2011/02/when-gender-goes-pear-shaped.html
Except now, if we tell that blogger she's wrong, we're sexist pigs who should Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Honestly? That's insulting to me, it's insulting to them, and it's insulting to the whole discussion. Listen? Good. Shut up? Bad. I hope PZ at some time recognizes the hypocrisy in writing a tirade that ends with telling men to shut up and listen. Oh, so we need to, but not you huh? Right.
A good rational response would be to make sure that if you are ever in a position to organize an discussion panel about sexism, you fill it with an equal number of men and women (even if that means you only have two people!) and make sure those people are professional. The organizers can apologize for the tone of the event if they feel it is needed, but honestly I don't know, maybe that's the tone of everything they do in which case they can hold comedy hour whenever they want.
----------------
Having said that, my initial response was that the whole thing was just stupid. I had to power through a lot of mental blocks to see the alternate viewpoint, but I do see the problem now...I just see it as a pretty minor problem in the scheme of things, and the problem is the same problem our entire society has with sexism, not a panel, not atheists, and not even men (because the women in the audience had the same reactions to the panel as the men, lots of laughing, etc.)
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
what do they know, they're just women. ( joke )
Maybe I understood it wrong but I think the "shut up and listen" thing was not meant to be about sexism generally, but specifically about listening to atheist women about what why they aren't interested in conventions or the movement. If a woman tries to tell me "female" is an objectifying word and tells me I shouldn't use it I'm sure as hell not gonna be guilt tripped into just shutting up and not even responding with what I think about it. However if women are telling you they're not interested in your movement because they feel objectified because of stuff like that, it's not really helping them feel more welcome to argue with them about what they should and shouldn't find offensive, and I think that's what PZ was talking about.
I would still disagree with that though, I think it is perfectly appropriate to debate what we should and should not find offensive.
To me that still falls under, 'listen' rather than 'shut up'.
I don't know though, maybe I'm just mis-understanding what he was going for.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
After re-reading his post, I think you're right. My mistake was reading the other blog in the first place, that clouded my judgment of what he was saying. Well, my mistake was letting the other blog cloud my judgement.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I feel I want to go to Germany. Such "discussions" would probably make little or no sense there, they are grown up enough as the society to sort these issues out a while ago.
... Americans got ...sex
Like it or not, sometimes it's boils down to economics.
If you're on a sinking ship, and calm, and cooperation are essential to problem solving, then someone being hysterical, irrational, and out of control, is counterproductive to the objective that's most productive, so the decision to 'slap' someone, to momentarily snap them into coherence, has obvious benefits.
The correct answer is:
It depends.
Depends on who you are dealing with, depends on the situation, and depends on what's at stake.
I watched the video, but the dialogue was replaced with some classical music, so I couldn't hear what took place.
There are all kinds of methods of communication between individuals.
There's monologues, and dialogues, and there's overlap of both. Then of course there's escalated levels of articulation, like passive aggressiveness, condescention, rhetoric and hyperbole, and vitriol, menacing, taunts, threats etc...
I collaborate, and negotiate a lot, in business. I can easily see escalations and power play maneuvers before they emerge.
Indignation is a common passive aggressive powerplay.
Indignations, and other escalated levels of communication, are absent in contracts. They're absent in technical manuals. They're superfluous, and counterproductive.
Religion has abused indignation to absurd levels.
So, ya, there's definitely instances where "STFU" are a commensurate response, in the opposite direction. Because it nullifies the efficacy of the power play maneuver.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris