To: info@centerforinquiry.net, tflynn@centerforinquiry.net
Cc: rlindsay@centerforinquiry.net
Subject: Open Letter to CFI in Support of Ron Lindsay
To the CFI Board of Directors:
As you are no doubt aware, a certain faction of online atheists is conducting a campaign to pressure CFI into firing Ron Lindsay as its CEO. The ostensible pretext for this campaign is the opening remarks Dr. Lindsay made at the recent conference on Women in Secularism.
I was not present at this conference, but Dr. Lindsay has posted a transcript of his speech, and no-one to my knowledge has disputed the accuracy of the transcript, so I feel safe on commenting based on this transcript.
Originally, the criticism of this speech by several leading voices of the anti-Lindsay faction, most notably Rebecca Watson, was that it was made by an "old white guy." Needless to say, since the conference was sponsored by CFI and Dr. Lindsay is its CEO, it was perfectly appropriate for him to deliver the opening remarks. Furthermore, his speech was very supportive of women and cognizant of the second-class status to which religion has often relegated them. There was nothing in the speech that I find the least bit controversial or objectionable.
Later criticism centered on a particular portion of the speech in which Dr. Lindsay criticized the mantra "shut up and listen" which is currently very much in vogue with the faction which seeks to depose him. This shibboleth which Watson, PZ Myers and others are so fond of invoking is the slogan of an extremist ideology which holds that all "old white guys" are ipso facto oppressors, while all women, minorities etc. are persecuted victims, are the only ones whose opinions have any validity, and indeed are the only ones who should be heard under any circumstances.
I need hardly point out that such a crude, reductionist and bigoted worldview is at odds with everything CFI stands for, as is the anti-Lindsay faction's contempt for free speech (as shown by their other favorite mantra, "freeze peach.")
The amount of rage and hatred expressed against Dr. Lindsay for his reasonable and unexceptionable speech is baffling unless seen in context. The faction behind this campaign is actively engaged in trying to hijack atheism and redefine it so that rigid adherence to their ideology of radical feminism is mandatory if one wants to be seen as a "true atheist". To this end, they have spent the last two years willfully dividing the movement and alienating those who have contributed the most to it.
Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Harriet Hall and many others have been the targets of hate campaigns similar to the one currently being mounted against Ron Lindsay. All of their many accomplishments and contributions are dismissed out of hand while some offhand remark or some insignificant incident is eagerly seized on, distorted beyond recognition, and used as the pretext for what can only be described as a witch hunt.
Many have speculated that the motivation for the near-constant attempts at ideological purges within the freethought/skeptic community is to manufacture controversy in order to increase revenue at the blogs of the leaders of this faction, as well as to monopolize the conference speaker circuit. But whatever the reasons, you must agree that rigid doctrinaire dogma, suppression of diversity of opinion, hive-minded bullying and intimidation, and dehumanizing people by treating them merely as categories - male, female, gay, straight or whatever - is fundamentally at odds with the values for which CFI stands.
It would set a very dangerous precedent to give in to the demands of these dishonest bullies. They will not be appeased - they will only move on to their next victim. I hope I can rely on CFI to support Dr. Lindsay and continue to uphold free speech, free inquiry and respectful treatment of all people as individuals.
This open letter has been published on my blog, Schrödinger's Therapist
Sincerely,
[Schrödinger's Therapist]
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
STFU and listen, you privileged silencing oppressor!
I'm a bad blogger - I haven't updated this blog in a long time. I thought I would take the opportunity to step back a bit rather than trying to catch up on all the latest witch-hunts and manufactroversies, and instead talk in general terms about my problems with the Atheism-plus/FTB/SJW movement.
Other the past several months I've been exposed willy-nilly to a great deal of the Critical Race/Gender Theory (CRGT) ideology that underpins the "plus" movement. It's become inescapably obvious that we're not just dealing with two models of communication. Instead, there is a whole different worldview associated with CRGT - one I personally find abhorrent. (Cue PZ Myers crowing "Schrödinger's Therapist finds the idea of treating women as human beings abhorrent" in 5-4-3-2-1...)
I believe strongly in (a) affording everyone equal rights, respect and responsibilities and (b) treating everyone first and foremost as an individual. This is not the same as being "colorblind" (or gender-blind or whatever). The law should be color/gender-blind and treat everyone equally (i.e. everyone should a priori have equal rights and responsibilities), but we as individuals shouldn't pretend that differences have no social impact.
Let me clarify. When you're talking with an individual from a different demographic group, it's quite possible that this individual has had different life experiences than you due to their group membership. You should be sensitive to this possibility and be willing and ready to learn what these differences are and how they inform the other person's point of view - while remembering that the background is only the background, not the whole person.
To give an example, have you every hesitated to turn to the police for help, for fear of how they might treat you? No? Well, some people have, based on how the police have previously treated them or their friends and family. This might be useful to keep in mind if the topic is, say, crime rates in black communities.
I think this is what the concept of "privilege" was originally about - it was supposed to be a consciousness-raising exercise. You would realize that you weren't getting the whole picture due to the difference between your background and the other person's, and you would voluntarily try to educate yourself and be more sensitive to where they were coming from.
It's the same with politically correct speech - originally it was a consciousness-raising exercise. Suppose hypothetically you were in the habit of using the N-word because that was the culture you grew up in. Someone comes along and tells you in a non-confrontational way, "Look, you might not mean any harm by using that word, but a lot of people are hurt by it." Instead of arguing that some of these same people use the word themselves, you take on board the fact that there are people who are genuinely hurt when you use it. From that point on, you stop and think before using it, and at some point you voluntarily drop it from your habitual usage. Your consciousness has been raised.
Of course this isn't the way privilege and PC speech codes work nowadays. Political correctness has become all about laying down the law and dictating to people, often in a ridiculously nit-picking and infantilizing way, which words are mandatory and which are forbidden. Likewise, accusations of "privilege" are thrown around in a heavy-handed fashion to dismiss people's feelings and opinions out of hand based on their membership of a "non-PC" group.
Which brings us to the heart of my objections to CRGT. In contrast to my worldview, the CRGT-mongers apparently just don't see people as individuals. Instead, they have a list of criteria to label people with: gender, skin color, sexual orientation, cis vs. trans, able-bodied vs. "differently abled", and what not. Your whole identity reduces to the set of labels that are applied to you. You are not an individual - you are interchangeable with anyone else who has been put in the same little box.
In SJW ideology, your individual life experiences and circumstances are of no significance. For example, if you are a man, then you're automatically privileged and an oppressor - even if your home is a cardboard box under a bridge. You're a member of a non-PC group, and therefore your thoughts are not only deterministic and predictable, but irrelevant. In fact you should not even be allowed to speak - you should simply Shut Up And Listen.
Conversely, if you're a woman, you're automatically an oppressed marginalized victim - even if you are flown out to a conference, put up in an expensive hotel, and paid to speak. No-one has the right to disagree with you. Anyone who does is by definition "harassing" and "silencing" you, even if you have a microphone and/or a widely-read blog and they don't.
Now, I recognize that genuine harassment and threats have emanated from both sides of the Great Atheist Schism, and I condemn them. But I am struck by the dishonesty of the SJW's in conflating all criticism and dissent with the worst actions of a small minority who may or not be on the "other side", while explicitly endorsing the "shove a dead porcupine up your ass and go die in a fire" culture that they encourage and engender on the "plus" side.
It's clear that the odious PZ Myers and his FTB clique have a pretty fucked up view of free speech, or "Freeze Peach" as they childishly sneer at it. My own view is that free speech is as close to sacred as anything can be for an atheist. Free speech is how all ideas get a hearing, and the best ones succeed in the ecosystem of ideas while others gradually go extinct.
But I'm convinced the SJW's simply do not recognize free speech as a universal right. Rather, it's "a tool of Teh Patriarchy to harass, oppress and silence marginalized victims." When a SAWCASM (straight abled-bodied etc. etc.) person speaks, he is, by the very act of speaking, exploiting his "privilege" and harassing and silencing the non-SAWCASM victims. Therefore, he should not be allowed to speak. He should be forced to Shut Up And Listen.
When OVATA (Oppressed Victims And Their Allies) speak, they are under no obligation to support their claims with reason and evidence. Reason and evidence, after all, are (you guessed it) tools of Teh Patriarchy to HO&S MV's. OVATA are allowed, in fact required, to spew out raw anger and invective because of their victim status. I believe this is the explanation for their blatant double standards.
In the SJW/FTB view, there simply is no ecosystem of ideas. Only the OVATA dogma is legitimate, and no dissent from it can be tolerated. The legitimacy of an idea is determined solely by how the speaker has been labeled, which little box he or she has been categorized in.
When you strip away the verbiage and examine the core assumptions of CRGT, it becomes clear that it is utterly incompatible with any notions of freethought, skepticism, or rationalism. This, plus the crude, reductionist, insulting and dehumanizing way it attempts to strip people of their individuality and treat them simply as labels, is what makes it repellant to me.
This is why I question whether it's possible, let alone desirable, to build bridges to the "plus" side. They are determined to wallow in their self-imposed victim status and close their ears to any viewpoint originating outside their echo chamber. They are becoming increasingly toxic to the online freethought/skeptical community as a whole, as well as hurting the very groups they claim to help, by instinctively crying "misogyny" first and thinking not at all.
My view is, to hell with them. Wall them off and don't let them do any more damage. Let them stew in their own juice, while always being ready to extend the hand of friendship to people like Ellen Beth Wachs who get kicked out for daring to think independently, or who leave in disgust at the intellectual shallowness and dishonesty.
Considering the speed and recklessness with which Myers has been burning bridges and alienating allies, it's only a question of time before he and his coterie of SJW's are at each other's throats, and A-plus collapses in a final implosion of butt-hurt. In the meantime, let's just move on and leave them behind!
Other the past several months I've been exposed willy-nilly to a great deal of the Critical Race/Gender Theory (CRGT) ideology that underpins the "plus" movement. It's become inescapably obvious that we're not just dealing with two models of communication. Instead, there is a whole different worldview associated with CRGT - one I personally find abhorrent. (Cue PZ Myers crowing "Schrödinger's Therapist finds the idea of treating women as human beings abhorrent" in 5-4-3-2-1...)
I believe strongly in (a) affording everyone equal rights, respect and responsibilities and (b) treating everyone first and foremost as an individual. This is not the same as being "colorblind" (or gender-blind or whatever). The law should be color/gender-blind and treat everyone equally (i.e. everyone should a priori have equal rights and responsibilities), but we as individuals shouldn't pretend that differences have no social impact.
Let me clarify. When you're talking with an individual from a different demographic group, it's quite possible that this individual has had different life experiences than you due to their group membership. You should be sensitive to this possibility and be willing and ready to learn what these differences are and how they inform the other person's point of view - while remembering that the background is only the background, not the whole person.
To give an example, have you every hesitated to turn to the police for help, for fear of how they might treat you? No? Well, some people have, based on how the police have previously treated them or their friends and family. This might be useful to keep in mind if the topic is, say, crime rates in black communities.
I think this is what the concept of "privilege" was originally about - it was supposed to be a consciousness-raising exercise. You would realize that you weren't getting the whole picture due to the difference between your background and the other person's, and you would voluntarily try to educate yourself and be more sensitive to where they were coming from.
It's the same with politically correct speech - originally it was a consciousness-raising exercise. Suppose hypothetically you were in the habit of using the N-word because that was the culture you grew up in. Someone comes along and tells you in a non-confrontational way, "Look, you might not mean any harm by using that word, but a lot of people are hurt by it." Instead of arguing that some of these same people use the word themselves, you take on board the fact that there are people who are genuinely hurt when you use it. From that point on, you stop and think before using it, and at some point you voluntarily drop it from your habitual usage. Your consciousness has been raised.
Of course this isn't the way privilege and PC speech codes work nowadays. Political correctness has become all about laying down the law and dictating to people, often in a ridiculously nit-picking and infantilizing way, which words are mandatory and which are forbidden. Likewise, accusations of "privilege" are thrown around in a heavy-handed fashion to dismiss people's feelings and opinions out of hand based on their membership of a "non-PC" group.
Which brings us to the heart of my objections to CRGT. In contrast to my worldview, the CRGT-mongers apparently just don't see people as individuals. Instead, they have a list of criteria to label people with: gender, skin color, sexual orientation, cis vs. trans, able-bodied vs. "differently abled", and what not. Your whole identity reduces to the set of labels that are applied to you. You are not an individual - you are interchangeable with anyone else who has been put in the same little box.
In SJW ideology, your individual life experiences and circumstances are of no significance. For example, if you are a man, then you're automatically privileged and an oppressor - even if your home is a cardboard box under a bridge. You're a member of a non-PC group, and therefore your thoughts are not only deterministic and predictable, but irrelevant. In fact you should not even be allowed to speak - you should simply Shut Up And Listen.
Conversely, if you're a woman, you're automatically an oppressed marginalized victim - even if you are flown out to a conference, put up in an expensive hotel, and paid to speak. No-one has the right to disagree with you. Anyone who does is by definition "harassing" and "silencing" you, even if you have a microphone and/or a widely-read blog and they don't.
Now, I recognize that genuine harassment and threats have emanated from both sides of the Great Atheist Schism, and I condemn them. But I am struck by the dishonesty of the SJW's in conflating all criticism and dissent with the worst actions of a small minority who may or not be on the "other side", while explicitly endorsing the "shove a dead porcupine up your ass and go die in a fire" culture that they encourage and engender on the "plus" side.
It's clear that the odious PZ Myers and his FTB clique have a pretty fucked up view of free speech, or "Freeze Peach" as they childishly sneer at it. My own view is that free speech is as close to sacred as anything can be for an atheist. Free speech is how all ideas get a hearing, and the best ones succeed in the ecosystem of ideas while others gradually go extinct.
But I'm convinced the SJW's simply do not recognize free speech as a universal right. Rather, it's "a tool of Teh Patriarchy to harass, oppress and silence marginalized victims." When a SAWCASM (straight abled-bodied etc. etc.) person speaks, he is, by the very act of speaking, exploiting his "privilege" and harassing and silencing the non-SAWCASM victims. Therefore, he should not be allowed to speak. He should be forced to Shut Up And Listen.
When OVATA (Oppressed Victims And Their Allies) speak, they are under no obligation to support their claims with reason and evidence. Reason and evidence, after all, are (you guessed it) tools of Teh Patriarchy to HO&S MV's. OVATA are allowed, in fact required, to spew out raw anger and invective because of their victim status. I believe this is the explanation for their blatant double standards.
In the SJW/FTB view, there simply is no ecosystem of ideas. Only the OVATA dogma is legitimate, and no dissent from it can be tolerated. The legitimacy of an idea is determined solely by how the speaker has been labeled, which little box he or she has been categorized in.
When you strip away the verbiage and examine the core assumptions of CRGT, it becomes clear that it is utterly incompatible with any notions of freethought, skepticism, or rationalism. This, plus the crude, reductionist, insulting and dehumanizing way it attempts to strip people of their individuality and treat them simply as labels, is what makes it repellant to me.
This is why I question whether it's possible, let alone desirable, to build bridges to the "plus" side. They are determined to wallow in their self-imposed victim status and close their ears to any viewpoint originating outside their echo chamber. They are becoming increasingly toxic to the online freethought/skeptical community as a whole, as well as hurting the very groups they claim to help, by instinctively crying "misogyny" first and thinking not at all.
My view is, to hell with them. Wall them off and don't let them do any more damage. Let them stew in their own juice, while always being ready to extend the hand of friendship to people like Ellen Beth Wachs who get kicked out for daring to think independently, or who leave in disgust at the intellectual shallowness and dishonesty.
Considering the speed and recklessness with which Myers has been burning bridges and alienating allies, it's only a question of time before he and his coterie of SJW's are at each other's throats, and A-plus collapses in a final implosion of butt-hurt. In the meantime, let's just move on and leave them behind!
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
How to Conduct yourself Considerately at Conferences without being a Condescending, Contentious Control-freak
It seems to me that common sense has been the first casualty of T-Shirt-Gate, Camera-on-a-Stick-Gate, and the various other manufactroversies ginned up to support the Atheism-plus/FTB narrative that there is an epidemic of rampant sexual harassment by men at atheist and skeptic conferences.
It's clear to any objective observer that the plussers are shooting themselves in the foot with their reckless scaremongering. But maybe they don't care that they are scaring women away, as long as they get to monopolize the speaker circuit and collect their speaker's fees.
However, it's a serious matter for conference organizers when they hastily impose harassment policies on the basis of a game of telephone that starts with cherry-picked anecdotes that quickly get blown up out of all proportion. Not only do they risk turning off ordinary law-abiding grown-ups with straitjacketing and infantilizing codes of conduct that take all the fun and spontaneity out of legal and consensual friendly interactions, and force everyone to walk on eggshells at all times. They also run the even more serious risk of exposing themselves to significant legal liability if they draft do-it-yourself policies without the necessary legal expertise. One "detrimental reliance" lawsuit could shut a conference down for good.
Rather than drawing up an exhaustive list of thou-shalt-nots, conference organizers would be better advised to put forward a policy that:
Notice the phrasing: "I'm not comfortable with it" rather than "You're making me uncomfortable". Take ownership of your own feelings and don't assume that something that you're uncomfortable with is necessarily a case of malice aforethought. For example, some people are huggers while others need a lot more personal space. It's not a question of one person or the other behaving incorrectly. It depends on the individual and his or her cultural background.
Sorry to belabor the point, but on some other blogs I've seen proposals that there should be no physical contact unless you first request it verbally and the other person gives verbal assent. This sounds incredibly awkward and stilted - "May I shake your hand? May I tap you lightly on the shoulder to get your attention?" And yet some women complain that this kind of policy doesn't go far enough: "Many women will say yes anyway, for fear of being labeled a bitch."
Criminy! So now men are supposed to know by psychic power when yes means no? This sort of helpless-victim attitude bugs the living crap out of me. "Please don't do that, I'm not comfortable with it" - how hard is that? Sweetie, if you can't stand up for yourself in such a basic way, you are incapable of taking responsibility for yourself and should not be out alone in public.
In a nutshell: have fun, act like a grown-up, be friendly and considerate to other people. Speak up for yourself while respecting others. Take responsibility for your behavior and don't be either passive or aggressive. Be supportive of others and the group as a whole in maintaining a pleasant atmosphere.
Conference organizers, please don't imagine you can anticipate every possibility and create a ruling for it in advance. You will fail! And you'll only create loopholes and anomalies, incentivizing some people to game the system. Stick to broad principles and trust your attendees - the vast majority of them will be reasonable people who don't need everything spelled out for them.
There - you see how easy it is to establish a sensible policy? We don't need to run around like headless chickens screaming that the sky is falling. Nor do we need reams of legalese (apart from some sort of cover-your-ass disclaimer as discussed above), just some common sense and good will.
It's really all about attitude. If you go in with a belligerent or fearful attitude, expecting every man you meet to rape you and/or invite you for coffee, you are not going to enjoy yourself, no matter what policy is in place or how stringently it is enforced - and other people probably won't enjoy your company either.
Regarding the last bullet in the above list, it's striking that Myers and company are so blind to their own double standards. Myers would be the first to lose his shit if a speaker called out Rebecca Watson from the podium, or a man tweeted a picture of Adria Richards. If we're going to have codes of conduct, let them be binding on all, without special privileges for anyone! And I specifically condemn codes of conduct that are designed to be weapons to settle old scores in some tribal dispute, or to suppress legitimate criticism and put it on the same level as "grabbing someone's ass." I don't think I need to spell out the hypocrisy involved here.
It seems to me that the ideal conference policy would simply say, "Act like a grown-up and we'll treat you like one." Most disputes can be solved easily if people act maturely and charitably. If conference staff have to intervene, resolution should be calibrated to the cultural norms of the majority of attendees. We should not let the tail wag the dog by trying to cater exclusively to the most hypersensitive, especially when some individuals have shown a willingness to act in bad faith and try to game the system, for example by equating "fake jewelry" with harassment.
Again, it all comes down to common sense and good will - qualities that are sadly lacking in those who are proposing the most rigid and all-encompassing policies!
It's clear to any objective observer that the plussers are shooting themselves in the foot with their reckless scaremongering. But maybe they don't care that they are scaring women away, as long as they get to monopolize the speaker circuit and collect their speaker's fees.
However, it's a serious matter for conference organizers when they hastily impose harassment policies on the basis of a game of telephone that starts with cherry-picked anecdotes that quickly get blown up out of all proportion. Not only do they risk turning off ordinary law-abiding grown-ups with straitjacketing and infantilizing codes of conduct that take all the fun and spontaneity out of legal and consensual friendly interactions, and force everyone to walk on eggshells at all times. They also run the even more serious risk of exposing themselves to significant legal liability if they draft do-it-yourself policies without the necessary legal expertise. One "detrimental reliance" lawsuit could shut a conference down for good.
Rather than drawing up an exhaustive list of thou-shalt-nots, conference organizers would be better advised to put forward a policy that:
- Explicitly disclaims being a legal document or creating a duty of care, and warns that it should not be relied on as a guarantee of anyone's well-being.
- Sets expectations on how conference participants are expected to behave, e.g. "All participants are expected to help create a friendly and welcoming atmosphere for one another." It should be about general principles rather than micro-managing trivialities, such as what perfume or cologne people should wear.
- Encourages participants to contact police or venue security if they fear for their safety.
- Encourages participants to settle minor disputes directly with one another, without involving anyone else, whenever feasible.
- Encourages participants to consult staff to resolve problems of intermediate severity.
- Discourages participants from escalating disputes in an inappropriate way, e.g. by tweeting or blogging people's pictures or private information, or a speaker ambushing an audience member and abusing the power of the podium.
Notice the phrasing: "I'm not comfortable with it" rather than "You're making me uncomfortable". Take ownership of your own feelings and don't assume that something that you're uncomfortable with is necessarily a case of malice aforethought. For example, some people are huggers while others need a lot more personal space. It's not a question of one person or the other behaving incorrectly. It depends on the individual and his or her cultural background.
Sorry to belabor the point, but on some other blogs I've seen proposals that there should be no physical contact unless you first request it verbally and the other person gives verbal assent. This sounds incredibly awkward and stilted - "May I shake your hand? May I tap you lightly on the shoulder to get your attention?" And yet some women complain that this kind of policy doesn't go far enough: "Many women will say yes anyway, for fear of being labeled a bitch."
Criminy! So now men are supposed to know by psychic power when yes means no? This sort of helpless-victim attitude bugs the living crap out of me. "Please don't do that, I'm not comfortable with it" - how hard is that? Sweetie, if you can't stand up for yourself in such a basic way, you are incapable of taking responsibility for yourself and should not be out alone in public.
In a nutshell: have fun, act like a grown-up, be friendly and considerate to other people. Speak up for yourself while respecting others. Take responsibility for your behavior and don't be either passive or aggressive. Be supportive of others and the group as a whole in maintaining a pleasant atmosphere.
Conference organizers, please don't imagine you can anticipate every possibility and create a ruling for it in advance. You will fail! And you'll only create loopholes and anomalies, incentivizing some people to game the system. Stick to broad principles and trust your attendees - the vast majority of them will be reasonable people who don't need everything spelled out for them.
There - you see how easy it is to establish a sensible policy? We don't need to run around like headless chickens screaming that the sky is falling. Nor do we need reams of legalese (apart from some sort of cover-your-ass disclaimer as discussed above), just some common sense and good will.
It's really all about attitude. If you go in with a belligerent or fearful attitude, expecting every man you meet to rape you and/or invite you for coffee, you are not going to enjoy yourself, no matter what policy is in place or how stringently it is enforced - and other people probably won't enjoy your company either.
Regarding the last bullet in the above list, it's striking that Myers and company are so blind to their own double standards. Myers would be the first to lose his shit if a speaker called out Rebecca Watson from the podium, or a man tweeted a picture of Adria Richards. If we're going to have codes of conduct, let them be binding on all, without special privileges for anyone! And I specifically condemn codes of conduct that are designed to be weapons to settle old scores in some tribal dispute, or to suppress legitimate criticism and put it on the same level as "grabbing someone's ass." I don't think I need to spell out the hypocrisy involved here.
It seems to me that the ideal conference policy would simply say, "Act like a grown-up and we'll treat you like one." Most disputes can be solved easily if people act maturely and charitably. If conference staff have to intervene, resolution should be calibrated to the cultural norms of the majority of attendees. We should not let the tail wag the dog by trying to cater exclusively to the most hypersensitive, especially when some individuals have shown a willingness to act in bad faith and try to game the system, for example by equating "fake jewelry" with harassment.
Again, it all comes down to common sense and good will - qualities that are sadly lacking in those who are proposing the most rigid and all-encompassing policies!
Monday, April 8, 2013
Women and Bullies
I've been planning to write this post for a long time, but had trouble coming up with a structure for it. I'm still not sure, so I'll just put it out there. (Thanks to Katie whose honest and courageous post about her own dysfunctional family gave me the impetus to finally get this off my chest - sorry I can't find the link now. UPDATE: it's here.)
I grew up in an outwardly normal family, but in reality I was in a very abusive situation. Not sexual abuse, but constant physical abuse and a ton of emotional and psychological abuse. My mother was the main abuser, but my father and siblings also played a large part.
I have no idea what started it all - maybe my mother had post-partum depression after I was born. In any case we never bonded, and she never developed any affection for me. For as long as I can remember, I was the whipping boy of the family. My mother had an explosive temper, and I was almost always the one she took it out on.
My mother could also sometimes lash out against the other family members, but she obviously felt guilty afterwards as she had genuine affection for them, and tried to make it up to them. But when it came to me, she had nothing but hatred and rage.
I could do nothing right - now matter how meek and subservient I was, without warning she would start bellowing about how "insolent" and "ungrateful" I was. Then out would come the wooden spoon, and she would keep on beating me until it broke. That woman got through wooden spoons the way ordinary people get through toilet paper.
Try for a moment to imagine how terrifying it is to be a small defenseless child, and have a mad roaring bull of a woman barreling down on you at top speed, her face contorted with rage. Then the pain that you think is never going to end. Over and over again, the sharp agonizing pain until her weapon breaks. Then maybe she gets in a kick or two to the belly before she finally leaves you alone, crying helplessly on the floor in a broken heap, all dignity gone.
I can still show you the physical scars from those years, but the psychological scars run much deeper. To this day, whenever I make a mistake, however minor, I instantly hear my mother's voice bellowing in my ears: "You stupid fool, you're so stupid, you can't do anything right."
Everyone else in the family, including my father, was afraid of my mother. They would join in the jeering and insults she constantly hurled at me. I see now that it was a kind of Stockholm syndrome, but I have a hard time forgiving them for being complicit in the abuse.
A few years ago my mother died. I didn't go to the funeral, and I never shed a single tear. My only regret was that I never got a chance to tell her face to face how much she had hurt me. Not that it would have done any good, in all probability. She was not at all an introspective person but had a rock-solid faith that everything she did was right, "because I said so."
Obviously my childhood has had a major impact in how I relate to people. I've become a master of invisibility, adept at keeping my head down and not drawing attention to myself. Which is a useful skill if you're trying to avoid being beaten with a wooden spoon (or fists and feet) by your mother, but not so much in adult life, especially in my career. Not to boast, but I have a genius-level IQ and a math PhD from one of the top technical universities in the US if not the world - and yet I've struggled through life, eking out an existence on more or less menial computer programming jobs.
I've often wondered how I didn't end up as some kind of serial killer. I don't mean to be overly dramatic, but I've read a lot about the effects of emotional abuse and denial of affection in children. I can only guess that somehow I tapped into some deep well of inner strength that carried me through. There's also been the occasional act of kindness and caring, sometimes from relatives, sometimes from strangers, sometimes even anonymously over the internet.
If you remember nothing else from this post, remember this: don't ever underestimate the value of a small act of kindness. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to put myself out of my misery, but an unexpected act of kindness or a concerned question made me put it off and live another day.
Anyway, my life is more or less stable now. I've been home to visit my father a couple of times since my mother's death, and I've come to realize that he is basically a decent man who was dominated by her, and very much under her thumb. I guess I forgive him in so far as I don't wish him harm. But if I could start my life over again in a different family, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
"So is this why you hate women?"
No, you stupid hypothetical commenter! It's what I hate bullies. And I don't for an instant fall for the line that all women are eternal helpless victims, and all men are violent, rapey and "toxic" in their masculinity. Plus I have contempt for anyone who plays the victim card over trivial slights, whether real or perceived.
There's no neat way to wrap this up, no happy ending - life's a struggle, and you just keep on grinding away until it's over. The best you can hope for is the occasional time when you get caught up in the present moment, focusing so intently on it that you forget the past, and forget yourself. And I'll leave it at that. Thanks for reading, if anyone made it this far!
I grew up in an outwardly normal family, but in reality I was in a very abusive situation. Not sexual abuse, but constant physical abuse and a ton of emotional and psychological abuse. My mother was the main abuser, but my father and siblings also played a large part.
I have no idea what started it all - maybe my mother had post-partum depression after I was born. In any case we never bonded, and she never developed any affection for me. For as long as I can remember, I was the whipping boy of the family. My mother had an explosive temper, and I was almost always the one she took it out on.
My mother could also sometimes lash out against the other family members, but she obviously felt guilty afterwards as she had genuine affection for them, and tried to make it up to them. But when it came to me, she had nothing but hatred and rage.
I could do nothing right - now matter how meek and subservient I was, without warning she would start bellowing about how "insolent" and "ungrateful" I was. Then out would come the wooden spoon, and she would keep on beating me until it broke. That woman got through wooden spoons the way ordinary people get through toilet paper.
Try for a moment to imagine how terrifying it is to be a small defenseless child, and have a mad roaring bull of a woman barreling down on you at top speed, her face contorted with rage. Then the pain that you think is never going to end. Over and over again, the sharp agonizing pain until her weapon breaks. Then maybe she gets in a kick or two to the belly before she finally leaves you alone, crying helplessly on the floor in a broken heap, all dignity gone.
I can still show you the physical scars from those years, but the psychological scars run much deeper. To this day, whenever I make a mistake, however minor, I instantly hear my mother's voice bellowing in my ears: "You stupid fool, you're so stupid, you can't do anything right."
Everyone else in the family, including my father, was afraid of my mother. They would join in the jeering and insults she constantly hurled at me. I see now that it was a kind of Stockholm syndrome, but I have a hard time forgiving them for being complicit in the abuse.
A few years ago my mother died. I didn't go to the funeral, and I never shed a single tear. My only regret was that I never got a chance to tell her face to face how much she had hurt me. Not that it would have done any good, in all probability. She was not at all an introspective person but had a rock-solid faith that everything she did was right, "because I said so."
Obviously my childhood has had a major impact in how I relate to people. I've become a master of invisibility, adept at keeping my head down and not drawing attention to myself. Which is a useful skill if you're trying to avoid being beaten with a wooden spoon (or fists and feet) by your mother, but not so much in adult life, especially in my career. Not to boast, but I have a genius-level IQ and a math PhD from one of the top technical universities in the US if not the world - and yet I've struggled through life, eking out an existence on more or less menial computer programming jobs.
I've often wondered how I didn't end up as some kind of serial killer. I don't mean to be overly dramatic, but I've read a lot about the effects of emotional abuse and denial of affection in children. I can only guess that somehow I tapped into some deep well of inner strength that carried me through. There's also been the occasional act of kindness and caring, sometimes from relatives, sometimes from strangers, sometimes even anonymously over the internet.
If you remember nothing else from this post, remember this: don't ever underestimate the value of a small act of kindness. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to put myself out of my misery, but an unexpected act of kindness or a concerned question made me put it off and live another day.
Anyway, my life is more or less stable now. I've been home to visit my father a couple of times since my mother's death, and I've come to realize that he is basically a decent man who was dominated by her, and very much under her thumb. I guess I forgive him in so far as I don't wish him harm. But if I could start my life over again in a different family, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
"So is this why you hate women?"
No, you stupid hypothetical commenter! It's what I hate bullies. And I don't for an instant fall for the line that all women are eternal helpless victims, and all men are violent, rapey and "toxic" in their masculinity. Plus I have contempt for anyone who plays the victim card over trivial slights, whether real or perceived.
There's no neat way to wrap this up, no happy ending - life's a struggle, and you just keep on grinding away until it's over. The best you can hope for is the occasional time when you get caught up in the present moment, focusing so intently on it that you forget the past, and forget yourself. And I'll leave it at that. Thanks for reading, if anyone made it this far!
Friday, April 5, 2013
Breasts or Burqa?
Many people are showing their support for the Tunisian activist Amina. That's great. But @furrygirl makes an interesting point, commenting on Muslim women who are speaking out against FEMEN:
I have to tell you, I get creeped out when I see pictures like this:
It's very hard for me to see the burqa as anything but a prison the woman is forced to carry around with her, which also destroys her identity and individuality. The guy could divorce and remarry, and he'd never have to change the photo!
Banning the burqa - as France did - is perhaps too extreme a response. But there are legitimate reasons to restrict it. I don't believe someone wearing a burqa should be allowed into a bank or courthouse, or any place where security or the need to verify people's identity is a concern.
Some years ago there was a case in Florida where a Saudi woman demanded the "right" to have her driver's license photo taken with her face completely veiled. Presumably the irony that if she returned to Saudi Arabia, she would not be allowed to drive, escaped her!
Some Muslim women insist that they cover themselves up of their own free will, and enjoying being "invisible" in public. Of course they are not invisible, not in the west anyway - they stand out like sore thumbs, and many others feel uncomfortable in their presence. And are they really exercising free will, or internalizing oppression?
I guess I have to come down on the side of treating all women as autonomous human beings, and letting them make their own decisions even if the decisions are ones I disagree with and I'm not totally sure those decisions are made freely. Anything else is patronizing.
But at the same time, there are situations as I've mentioned above where it's legitimate to impose restrictions. It's not a case of "Ban the Burqa" but rather, if you choose to obliterate your identity in public, that's your right, and here are the consequences of your choice that you'll have to live with.
To sum up, I believe that we should make every effort to ensure that women do in fact have a choice. We should be concerned about attitudes they may have learned at home that women are only worth half as much as men. We should try to counteract such attitudes in public schools, and we should take a hard look at Islamic schools that try to cocoon Muslim immigrants as much as possible to prevent them from being affected by secular and humanist attitudes in western countries.
Finally, we should recognize that it's not all-or-nothing. Some women will choose breasts, some the burqa, and most will fall in between. The goal should not be to force a particular outcome but to maximize every individual's choice and opportunity!
You don't have to be pro-Islam to accept the fact that Muslim women are capable of making their own choices of what they wear and believe.This is one of those cases where Twitter is a poor platform for discussion. Yes, women can make their own choices. But are they really totally free to choose, if they've been covered up and inculcated with self-loathing since childhood?
— furrygirl (@furrygirl) April 5, 2013
I have to tell you, I get creeped out when I see pictures like this:
It's very hard for me to see the burqa as anything but a prison the woman is forced to carry around with her, which also destroys her identity and individuality. The guy could divorce and remarry, and he'd never have to change the photo!
Banning the burqa - as France did - is perhaps too extreme a response. But there are legitimate reasons to restrict it. I don't believe someone wearing a burqa should be allowed into a bank or courthouse, or any place where security or the need to verify people's identity is a concern.
Some years ago there was a case in Florida where a Saudi woman demanded the "right" to have her driver's license photo taken with her face completely veiled. Presumably the irony that if she returned to Saudi Arabia, she would not be allowed to drive, escaped her!
Some Muslim women insist that they cover themselves up of their own free will, and enjoying being "invisible" in public. Of course they are not invisible, not in the west anyway - they stand out like sore thumbs, and many others feel uncomfortable in their presence. And are they really exercising free will, or internalizing oppression?
I guess I have to come down on the side of treating all women as autonomous human beings, and letting them make their own decisions even if the decisions are ones I disagree with and I'm not totally sure those decisions are made freely. Anything else is patronizing.
But at the same time, there are situations as I've mentioned above where it's legitimate to impose restrictions. It's not a case of "Ban the Burqa" but rather, if you choose to obliterate your identity in public, that's your right, and here are the consequences of your choice that you'll have to live with.
To sum up, I believe that we should make every effort to ensure that women do in fact have a choice. We should be concerned about attitudes they may have learned at home that women are only worth half as much as men. We should try to counteract such attitudes in public schools, and we should take a hard look at Islamic schools that try to cocoon Muslim immigrants as much as possible to prevent them from being affected by secular and humanist attitudes in western countries.
Finally, we should recognize that it's not all-or-nothing. Some women will choose breasts, some the burqa, and most will fall in between. The goal should not be to force a particular outcome but to maximize every individual's choice and opportunity!
Thursday, April 4, 2013
A Bridge Too Far?
The Great Atheist Schism, which began with a trivial event in an elevator, has been dragging on for almost two years now. Since then we've seen countless other relatively minor incidents - T-shirt-gate, Camera-on-a-stick-gate, off-the-cuff remarks by Michael Shermer and various other people - eagerly seized on, distorted, and exploited by the Atheism-plus axis to further a narrative that the atheist and skeptic movements are overrun with vast hordes of misogynistic, rapist or rape-supporting "MRA's". Sadly, a smal number of people on the other side have taken the bait and have responded with crude and occasionally threatening comments, adding more fuel to the fire.
Let me make it clear that I condemn threats and harassment, regardless of which side originates them. I am saddened to see the movement so bitterly divided, especially at a time when religious extremists both in the US and around the world are redoubling their efforts to roll back the rights of women and gays, and impose theocracy.
I also want to state the I mostly agree with the claimed goals of Atheism-plus. After all, what reasonable person doesn't support equal rights and respect for women and minorities? So far, however, I haven't seen Atheism-plus achieve or even attempt anything concrete and useful towards these goals, apart from the ill-considered and short-lived "A+ Scribe" which quickly collapsed in a fit of butt-hurt and pointless squabbling.
I can't help thinking that there is something deeply cynical about the Atheism-plus supporters wrapping themselves in the cloak of social justice as though to imply that everyone who doesn't march in ideological lockstep with them is a woman-hater, a homophobe and what not. For those of us who've broken free of the tribalistic, black-and-white thinking of the religion in which we were indoctrinated as children, it's disappointing to see the same mentality emerging from our own ranks.
What I find even more disturbing is the uncritical group-think and frenzied suppression of debate in every forum controlled by Atheism-plus. This is clearly incompatible with skepticism and freethought. And a huge portion of the controversy seems to be about settling old scores rather than having anything to do with principles.
I gather there is a long history of bad blood between Jen McCreight and Abbie Smith, and likewise between Rebecca Watson and several other individuals. I don't know the details, and I don't want to know. All I'm saying is that personal animosity is a poor basis for a social movement.
I appreciate that some people, notably Mick Nugent, are trying to bridge the divide and promote dialogue. Of all the people who identify with or lean toward Atheism-plus, he strikes me as the most honorable, decent and fair-minded.
However, it's clear that Myers, Watson, Carrier and company are determined to burn as many bridges as possible, and alienate as many allies as possible. If you're not totally ideologically pure in their eyes, you must be mindlessly witch-hunted and declared a pariah and unperson until the end of time. I really question whether it's possible, let alone desirable, to build bridges with fanatics who have such contempt for the values that I regard as vital to the secular movement. ("Freeze peach"? Seriously?)
Look at the treatment meted out to people like EllenBeth Wachs and Julian Francisco. They were staunch allies of A-plus, but the instant they showed any signs of thinking for themselves, they had to be dogpiled on, destroyed, and hounded out of the plus-o-sphere.
Mick Nugent's initiative, well-meaning as it is, is doomed to failure because the A-plus leaders have no interest whatsoever in reaching out honestly and in good faith to anyone who isn't already marching in lockstep with them. Blinded by their fanatical zeal, they imagine they have nothing to learn from anyone else and no reason to listen. Their attitude could be summed up as: "Fuck civility! We are Oppressed Victims (TM), and we demand the right to scream and shout non-stop about how much we're being silenced! Everyone else is an oppressor who should just shut up and listen. That's what we mean by dialogue!"
At this point, I have concluded that the best way forward is to ignore Atheism-plus and leave it behind. It is definitely on the losing side of the trends. More and more people are turned off by the constant juvenile drama created by the likes of Ophelia Benson and the Skepchicks, and the blatant hypocrisy, double standards and dishonesty shown by Myers.
Eventually Atheism-plus will simply fade away, or more likely, collapse in a final meltdown of butt-hurt. Hopefully the rest of us will learn something from the whole fiasco. We'll learn to be a little bit more sensitive to the concerns of women, and work productively with those who are more interested in solving problems than scoring rhetorical points against a hated enemy. We'll realize that we must always be on guard against groupthink, tribalism and dogma, even within our own ranks. And hopefully we'll all loosen up and laugh at silly jokes about dongles, when it's obvious that no harm is intended by anyone towards anyone else.
The fifteen mintues are over. Athesim-plus is a movement whose time has come - and gone!
Let me make it clear that I condemn threats and harassment, regardless of which side originates them. I am saddened to see the movement so bitterly divided, especially at a time when religious extremists both in the US and around the world are redoubling their efforts to roll back the rights of women and gays, and impose theocracy.
I also want to state the I mostly agree with the claimed goals of Atheism-plus. After all, what reasonable person doesn't support equal rights and respect for women and minorities? So far, however, I haven't seen Atheism-plus achieve or even attempt anything concrete and useful towards these goals, apart from the ill-considered and short-lived "A+ Scribe" which quickly collapsed in a fit of butt-hurt and pointless squabbling.
I can't help thinking that there is something deeply cynical about the Atheism-plus supporters wrapping themselves in the cloak of social justice as though to imply that everyone who doesn't march in ideological lockstep with them is a woman-hater, a homophobe and what not. For those of us who've broken free of the tribalistic, black-and-white thinking of the religion in which we were indoctrinated as children, it's disappointing to see the same mentality emerging from our own ranks.
What I find even more disturbing is the uncritical group-think and frenzied suppression of debate in every forum controlled by Atheism-plus. This is clearly incompatible with skepticism and freethought. And a huge portion of the controversy seems to be about settling old scores rather than having anything to do with principles.
I gather there is a long history of bad blood between Jen McCreight and Abbie Smith, and likewise between Rebecca Watson and several other individuals. I don't know the details, and I don't want to know. All I'm saying is that personal animosity is a poor basis for a social movement.
I appreciate that some people, notably Mick Nugent, are trying to bridge the divide and promote dialogue. Of all the people who identify with or lean toward Atheism-plus, he strikes me as the most honorable, decent and fair-minded.
However, it's clear that Myers, Watson, Carrier and company are determined to burn as many bridges as possible, and alienate as many allies as possible. If you're not totally ideologically pure in their eyes, you must be mindlessly witch-hunted and declared a pariah and unperson until the end of time. I really question whether it's possible, let alone desirable, to build bridges with fanatics who have such contempt for the values that I regard as vital to the secular movement. ("Freeze peach"? Seriously?)
Look at the treatment meted out to people like EllenBeth Wachs and Julian Francisco. They were staunch allies of A-plus, but the instant they showed any signs of thinking for themselves, they had to be dogpiled on, destroyed, and hounded out of the plus-o-sphere.
Mick Nugent's initiative, well-meaning as it is, is doomed to failure because the A-plus leaders have no interest whatsoever in reaching out honestly and in good faith to anyone who isn't already marching in lockstep with them. Blinded by their fanatical zeal, they imagine they have nothing to learn from anyone else and no reason to listen. Their attitude could be summed up as: "Fuck civility! We are Oppressed Victims (TM), and we demand the right to scream and shout non-stop about how much we're being silenced! Everyone else is an oppressor who should just shut up and listen. That's what we mean by dialogue!"
At this point, I have concluded that the best way forward is to ignore Atheism-plus and leave it behind. It is definitely on the losing side of the trends. More and more people are turned off by the constant juvenile drama created by the likes of Ophelia Benson and the Skepchicks, and the blatant hypocrisy, double standards and dishonesty shown by Myers.
Eventually Atheism-plus will simply fade away, or more likely, collapse in a final meltdown of butt-hurt. Hopefully the rest of us will learn something from the whole fiasco. We'll learn to be a little bit more sensitive to the concerns of women, and work productively with those who are more interested in solving problems than scoring rhetorical points against a hated enemy. We'll realize that we must always be on guard against groupthink, tribalism and dogma, even within our own ranks. And hopefully we'll all loosen up and laugh at silly jokes about dongles, when it's obvious that no harm is intended by anyone towards anyone else.
The fifteen mintues are over. Athesim-plus is a movement whose time has come - and gone!
Friday, March 22, 2013
My two cents on Donglegate
If you're not familiar with Donglegate, there is a ton of stuff on the innertubes about it, so I will just post a link to what I consider the most sensible post I've seen so far on this whole sorry mess.
I've worked in the tech industry for many years. Every place I've worked in has been overwhelmingly male but there have always been extremely bright, capable women also, whom I've respected and enjoyed working with.
I once worked with a guy who had a really creepy way with women. He once left a dongle in a co-worker's computer, and since he sat next to me, I overheard him phoning her to say, in a very leering voice, "I left my dongle in your computer. You realize this incriminates both of us, don't you?" I cringed, and could only imagine the woman's reaction.
There were several other incidents where the guy made inappropriate remarks to women, and he had a reputation in the company for being a creep. A couple of times women vented to me about him, and I commiserated, but he was a peer so I wasn't in a position to discipline him. But now that I look back, I regret that I didn't take him aside and tell him that he was being inappropriate and people were complaining about him, and he needed to get his act together.
I'm sure that on various occasions I've unwittingly said things that made my female co-workers feel uncomfortable. I would much rather be told about it privately, and given a chance to apologize and learn from the incident, than have my picture plastered all over the internet.
I feel sorry for Adria Richards, and condemn the abuse and threats that were directed at her. But there's no denying that she mishandled the situation in a way that made her employer look bad and was incompatible with her role as the public face of the company.
I also empathize with the guy who was fired, who has since made a very classy apology. It's hard to find any winners in this situation. Too many people and companies have overreacted, and two people's careers are harmed, perhaps permanently. Very sad.
I think we all need to think about the fact that certain things are inappropriate to say in public, but there are also inappropriate ways of reacting (and of reacting to the reaction, and so on). Let's all try to be decent human beings and not lose a sense of perspective!
I've worked in the tech industry for many years. Every place I've worked in has been overwhelmingly male but there have always been extremely bright, capable women also, whom I've respected and enjoyed working with.
I once worked with a guy who had a really creepy way with women. He once left a dongle in a co-worker's computer, and since he sat next to me, I overheard him phoning her to say, in a very leering voice, "I left my dongle in your computer. You realize this incriminates both of us, don't you?" I cringed, and could only imagine the woman's reaction.
There were several other incidents where the guy made inappropriate remarks to women, and he had a reputation in the company for being a creep. A couple of times women vented to me about him, and I commiserated, but he was a peer so I wasn't in a position to discipline him. But now that I look back, I regret that I didn't take him aside and tell him that he was being inappropriate and people were complaining about him, and he needed to get his act together.
I'm sure that on various occasions I've unwittingly said things that made my female co-workers feel uncomfortable. I would much rather be told about it privately, and given a chance to apologize and learn from the incident, than have my picture plastered all over the internet.
I feel sorry for Adria Richards, and condemn the abuse and threats that were directed at her. But there's no denying that she mishandled the situation in a way that made her employer look bad and was incompatible with her role as the public face of the company.
I also empathize with the guy who was fired, who has since made a very classy apology. It's hard to find any winners in this situation. Too many people and companies have overreacted, and two people's careers are harmed, perhaps permanently. Very sad.
I think we all need to think about the fact that certain things are inappropriate to say in public, but there are also inappropriate ways of reacting (and of reacting to the reaction, and so on). Let's all try to be decent human beings and not lose a sense of perspective!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)