Don’t see anything wrong with it? Robinade will help you with that.

Far as I know, Iron Man doesn’t have any repulsors on his can, but at least he’s got armor. What’s Black Widow’s excuse?

It’s gotten to the point where the poses alone are enough to convey sexuality — a commenter on that thread expressed disbelief that it wasn’t Iron Woman. You need to read Escher Girls to see how rampant this ridiculous torquing-up of female anatomy is on such a regular basis.

He said then, “In order to protect the privacy of law-abiding, long gun owners, those whom that member and his party subjected to gross violations of their privacy, records held by the Canadian firearms program on currently registered long guns will be destroyed.”

Fast forward a few months, and Vic Toews has introduced the Tories’ newest salvo on freedom in bill C30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.

What does this bill propose? Well, you see, it allows the government warrantless wiretapping on all internet communications — ISPs have to turn over names, addresses, all communications, anything the government wants. You know, like they can do now, by getting a warrant. This does away with all that pesky check-and-balance nonsense and lets the government get on with the business of spying on everything the people of Canada does. So too does the even easier methods for getting the information in the new laws requiring ISPs to allow real-time data monitoring via a backdoor for law enforcement. Again, no warrants.

The bill says absolutely nothing about child predators, except in the title, evidently. But Vic Toews had already taken a few swings against anyone who would dare protest against this REAL invasion of privacy. Of course, he obviously had something of a pang of regret for using these execrable tactics, and he’s trying desperately to backpedal, but this video doesn’t lie (thanks sinned34!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1BAHc4Mr5M

One more time through this. Registering weaponry is a violation of privacy, but letting the government have sweeping powers to get whatever information they want whenever they want from ISPs without first justifying it with a court order is all in the interest of protecting the children.

Seriously.

Twitter responded with a hashtag, #tellviceverything, where they helpfully tweeted the obvious computer luddite Vic Twenty Toews (@toewsVic) with every mundane detail of their lives. I plan on very helpfully sending him a link to this post as well, though I’m sure he’s probably going to be well capable of finding dissenters on his own with his broad new powers!

First, there’s the ever-present fear of people gaming that sort of system, where on the internet, with anonymity, people give in to their baser ideals. Look at those places where giving offense is considered the highest virtue. The integrity of the voting system and the integrity of the submission system is quesitonable from the outset.

Second, there’s the very idea of competing with one another for the ability to do certain “moral” deeds. Must we elbow one another out of the way to tackle the little old lady looking to cross the street? And what of “grinding” certain low-level, easy to complete positive moral actions?

Third, is it really decent morality if you’re doing it for some (earthly or otherwise) reward? If you stop a mugging just because it’ll win you twenty points, is that a net good for society, or would people look for more altruistic reasons to stop that mugging before it’s considered moral?

Gamifying religion seems to suffer from every poor outcome and exploit that video game karma systems do. It might have some benefits in the real world, though. What do you folks think?

“The Holy Bible is the bedrock of Western civilization. Love it or hate it, it’s in every aspect of humanity,” said sponsor Rep. Jerry Bergevin of Manchester.

Bergevin’s bill would require all schools to offer an elective social studies course in Bible studies, where students would examine the Old Testament, the New Testament or both, and learn “biblical content, characters, poetry and narratives that are the prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, morals, oratory and public poetry.”

Currently, the only state prescription for social studies electives is that students must take a half-credit of world history, geography or global studies to graduate.

Because forcing schools to teach the Bible would give them the opportunity to steep the children in the Western civilization that is so foreign to them or something. Never mind that they are immersed in said civilization every day, have a very high likelihood of being raised to believe in the Bible in their home lives, and it is beyond cruel to force non-Christians to study the Bible in the same way as it is cruel to teach reality like evolution to these kids. While they fight for “academic freedom” on one front, they fight to take it away on another. The unmitigated gall.

An Alabama Republican senator thinks that raising teacher salaries is against the Bible, despite hefty raises he voted for senators:

“It’s a Biblical principle. If you double a teacher’s pay scale, you’ll attract people who aren’t called to teach,” said McGill.

[...]

“To go in and raise someone’s child for eight hours a day, or many people’s children for eight hours a day, requires a calling. It better be a calling in your life. I know I wouldn’t want to do it, OK? And these teachers that are called to teach, regardless of the pay scale, they would teach. It’s just in them to do. It’s the ability that God give ‘em. And there are also some teachers, it wouldn’t matter how much you would pay them, they would still perform to the same capacity. If you don’t keep that in balance, you’re going to attract people who are not called, who don’t need to be teaching our children. So, everything has a balance,” said McGill.

[...]
Curiously enough, McGill found absolutely no biblical grounds on which to not authorize a 67 percent pay increase for legislators in 2007, which increased annual salaries for the part-time legislators from $30,710 to $49,500.

So… it’s important not to raise teacher salaries or you won’t get people called by God to teach, but you need to raise senator salaries because… um… why? God didn’t call you to the position, so you’re just in it for the daily grind? Good, then you won’t miss your job.

Facebook and Google have apparently caved to India’s demands to filter their services to remove “blasphemous materials”:

The civil case being heard in Delhi on Monday was filed by Muslim petitioner Mufti Aizaz Arshad Kazmi, who alleged the companies were hosting material intolerant to religious sentiment.

Google and Facebook told the court they had complied with an earlier order by a Delhi district court judge to take down certain material.
Indian Communications Minister Kapil Sibal Communications Minister Kapil Sibal has taken a strong line on the issue

Google said: “This step is in accordance with Google’s longstanding policy of responding to court orders.”

Facebook India said it had also filed its compliance report.
[...]
A second, criminal case – brought by Hindu journalist Vinay Rai – is scheduled to be heard next month, with leading company executives summoned to appear.

If you think censorship is being banned from posting on a specific forum, what would you call this?

And finally, FINALLY, there’s a new civil rights group for white hetero Christian males, so they no longer have to deal with the oppression they face daily:

Called, “Sit-ins for Stacey,” it was created in honor of Tennessee state senator Stacey Campfield, that lawmaker who most-recently was kicked out of a local Knoxville restaurant in response to Campfield’s comments about how HIV/AIDS originated from a gay guy “screwing a monkey.”

Of course, like the man it is named for, “Sit-ins for Stacey” is a total joke, albeit one far more funny and productive. And it’s the brainchild of Scottie Thomaston, a writer and activist for the rights of the queer community, the disability community and other minorities.

It might be a joke, but these people have persecution complexes as big as their privilege, so frankly, mockery is the only way to go.

What other big important injustices have I missed? Any injustices righted?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV0RL7vK44E

BRB, going to go bust a move and see what my wife thinks.

via Daily Squee, apropos of nothing but that I needed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxsFSCTXr-Q

Admittedly, it’s light on the rapping, and heavy on the justification for why these Christians are representing for the Middle-East Side.

Okay, I’m just posting this for that one joke. I admit it.

My research about cervical cancer at the time told me it was very rare and that it occurred most often in women who had multiple sexual partners, who also had multiple sexual partners. In other words, the nurse said, it’s mainly a disease of prostitutes.
Well, I said, “That’s not me!”

Although my gut instinct was horror that she would imply that women with cervical cancer are prostitutes or they deserve their illness, I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she was simply recounting what this extraordinarily judgmental nurse had told her. Maybe she wasn’t actually implying that only whores** get cervical cancer as some sort of retribution for their immoral behaviour. (Though in my head I couldn’t help wonder if she also feels that AIDS is a “gay disease.”)

Or maybe she totally was. I watched her accompanying video, which basically repeats the information on the website for those of us too lazy to read.

So immediately I fell into research. And what I found out is that there’s a very specific profile of a person with cervical cancer. That person usually has many sexual partners. She’s very promiscuous. And her partners, in turn, also have very many different partners. What is really came down to was a description of a prostitute. And I knew that wasn’t me.

The human papilloma virus, HPV, is transmitted through sexual contact, it’s true. However, it is not transmitted solely to prostitutes or promiscuous women. Anyone telling you otherwise is trying to shame you for having sex. Period. It’s trying to turn a disease into a moral issue, using the existence of a sexually transmitted virus as a way to excoriate normal folks for having sex.

Let’s be perfectly clear. The only folks who have any sort of problem with people having consentual sex with other like-minded individuals are those who believe there’s some deity or another who has proscribed against having sex for pleasure. This sort of reprogramming, of telling people that their natural drives are evil or inherently wrong or what have you, is exactly the sort of mentality that leads unqualified speculations by unqualified pretenders to knowledge like this acupuncturist telling people who have HPV that they deserve their fates.

You all know someone who has HPV and survived cervical cancer. And fuck you very much if you think that makes that person bad in any way.

I sympathize that good people might be getting hurt by the pushback against misogyny in our community when they point out that some folks are being emotional rather than rational, but I empathize (which is significantly stronger than sympathy) with the people who are getting emotional because I get emotional when I see my friends and allies getting shit on over nonsense, and other friends and allies not even lifting a finger to rebut.

So this stuff needs to be talked about. Yet again. And yet again, at the explicit demand of the people who claim that we’re the ones stirring the pot.

However, it was cluttering up a perfectly good thread about helping rape victims get the help they need, so I’ve moved it here.

I’ll make this very clear up front — I believe John Greg is very wrong about a lot of things, especially about his full-throated support of Christina Hoff Sommers who believes that there’s such a thing as a “gender feminism/equity feminism dichotomy” where every feminist who recognizes that women are getting the shaft (err… so to speak) in society and point such out, are in actuality advocating that men are somehow the enemy. A corollary to this is that anyone who advocates for anything less than treating men and women identically in all circumstances is somehow also the enemy. Both of these positions are, as far as I can tell, strawmem, or should I say strawwomen — I have never encountered even the most radicalized (in the other sense) of radical (in the “get to the root” sense) feminists who hold these positions.

So I don’t believe the “gender feminism/equity feminism” construct is in any way useful, especially not in dealing with people who do not in fact want to kill or subjugate all men to the evil gynocracy — down that road lies MRAs of the sort that Manboobz covers. So it really surprised me to read that John Greg largely agrees with a good number of things that many feminists here at Freethought Blogs and elsewhere in the skeptic/atheist blogospheres actively espouse, myself included. I’ve moved this thread here because, while it was wrecking the post on rape, it probably deserves to be read.

The comments I’ve moved are here:

9. John Greg says:
   February 12, 2012 at 6:45 pm AST

   Jason, perhaps hell just froze over, or something like that. Anyway, I thought you’d be interested to know that I agree 100% with this statement:

   “However, I do have to take issue with the idea that there’s such a thing as a “real man”. This idea of masculinity drummed into us of stoicism, taking our “lumps” and walking them off, is nothing short of toxic. And the adjoining idea, that if you are unable to “walk it off”, you are not a real man, is every bit as toxic. The demand that men, if they are to conform to the gender roles to which they are consigned, must show no emotions and no weakness if they are to be considered appropriately manly, damages these very men. It puts them into an unwinnable situation when they are emotionally injured, where they are forced to compound their own injury.”

   Glad to see someone stating this issue clearly and with a reasonable amount of eloquence fairly devoid of sensationalism.

   Now, please don’t do a PeeZus and ban me for agreeing with you.

12. Jason Thibeault says:
    February 13, 2012 at 12:02 am AST

    John Greg @9: You might find you agree with me about a lot, if you weren’t so fixated on your disagreement with those posts where I’m defending women.

16. John Greg says:

    February 13, 2012 at 6:45 pm AST

    Jason said:

    “You might find you agree with me about a lot….”

    Yes, and no.

    Yes, because only a true blue fool would claim that sexism and misogyny do not exist in the world. And I have certainly never made any such stupid claim. Also, for the record, I tend to not post when I am in agreement with a post for the simple fact that I believe that, for the most part, posts stating agreement are kind of empty and meaningless rhetorical gestures.

    No, because where we fundamentally disagree is not about the existence of sexism and misogyny, but, for lack of better words, the location and instances of them.

    “… if you weren’t so fixated on your disagreement with those posts where I’m defending women.”

    But that is where you really do me an injustice by misrepresenting my position. I don’t disagree with your so-called defense of women. That is far, far too broad a brush. It is the specifics of certain instances of what you label sexism and misogyny that I frequently disagree with. I really do wish you would pay closer attention to my supposed sins and maintain some accuracy in your pointing them out and call a spade a spade, rather than labelling the entire deck as evil black.

    For example, you and other FfTB bloggers and commentors have labelled me sexist and misogynistic because I disagree with and do not trust a small group of gender feminists. And such labelling is misrepresentation of my position. Disagreeing with and not trusting a small group of gender feminists is no more sexist nor misogynistic than not wanting to sit beside the smelly and unwashed homeless tramp on the bus is racist because as well as being smelly and unwashed he also happens to be black.
17. John Greg says:

    February 13, 2012 at 8:42 pm AST

    Jason, here’s an idea. Why not post a list of the top ten, or five, whatever, issues you think define feminism and/or feminists. I’ll respond by noting which issues I agree with and support, and which issues I do not agree with and do not support. And I absolutely promise to play fair. That should help clarify whether or not I meet your, not my, but your definition of what a feminist is.

    You can even have fun with it by perhaps posting a second list: Top ten reasons why John Greg is an anti-feminist.

    C’mon, give it a go, Jason. You’ll have fun.
18. PZ Myers says:

    February 13, 2012 at 9:33 pm AST

    Greg, you’re a disgusting fraud.

    You cruise FtB, pretending to be the voice of reason, only to scurry back to your lair to giggle over “twats” and snicker over those stupid people on “freefromthoughtblogs”. You’re a two-faced slimeball.

    Don’t even try to pretend. When you “promise to play fair”, I know you’re just going to lie harder.
19. John Greg says:

    February 15, 2012 at 11:07 pm AST

    PeeZus, do grow up won’t you? Stop projecting your own juvenile neuroses onto others. I do not giggle over twats; don’t even use the word. And I don’t snicker over FfTB bloggers and posters. Some of them I roundly disagree with and say so; some of them I sometimes agree with, though I usually don’t. I have even posted some agreement here with some of the things Jason has pointed out.

    And as for my playing fair, I will. And how about pointing to some of these supposed lies I am just going to tell more of? Hmm?

    I think my comment to Jason is more than reasonable and fair, and is in point of fact a productive and constructive way to set up a running commentary on different individuals’ concept of feminists and feminism.

    Jason has called me an anti-feminist several times. I am only suggesting he take advantage of the medium and, you might say, prove it by listing what he considers to be the primary characteristics of feminism and/or feminists. Does that really upset you so much?

    Anyway, if he doesn’t wish to do so, for whatever reason, then so be it.
20. Stephanie Zvan says:

    February 16, 2012 at 2:32 pm AST

    Nice. “Where have I lied?” Well, how about you see the other thread you were commenting on where it was pointed out to you where you lied. Or do you thinking asking the question repeatedly will change the answer?
21. Marshall says:

    February 16, 2012 at 3:43 pm AST

    And as for my playing fair, I will. And how about pointing to some of these supposed lies I am just going to tell more of? Hmm?

    I suggest you stop doing this, seeing as how you still haven’t taken the time to defend yourself the last time you did this and got called out.
22. John Greg says:

    February 16, 2012 at 6:14 pm AST

    Marshall and Zvan: links, quotes, and citations are your friends girls and boys.

    I did answer Jason’s claim that I had lied; I answered it specifically. To wit:

    As I said to Jason, in regards to the post where I supposedly told a lie:

    “Yes, I remember the post too, but I do not remember what its title/Heading was, so I cannot find it, so, sorry, but no linkage. Anyway….

    “Well, I think calling that a lie is a bit of a thin stretch. I would say that my statement that you “explained on one of [your] other blog posts a few weeks ago why masculine/male gender epithets are completely harmless, tons of fun, and when judiciously applied quite appropriate, whereas feminine/female gender epithets are bad, bad, bad mojo and proof of indefensible horribleness” is more of a slight misrepresentation and a somewhat egregious exaggeration than a lie. But, if you insist, okay, I lied. Nasty evil me.

    Link for that exchange: (http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/02/11/the-context-that-justifies-cunt/#comment-50853)

    Myers, as is his way, has implied, without providing any evidence, that I am a pathological liar (“Don’t even try to pretend. When you “promise to play fair”, I know you’re just going to lie harder”). It could be argued that he has also implied, without providing any evidence, that I have and/or will tell serial lies. He has not, as is also his way, provided any proof. How you can accept such groundless inflammatory accusations from someone claiming to be an authority and an academic in any field is beyond my understanding. But, so it goes. You claim to be critical thinking skeptics, not a horde of frightened theists. Prove it.

    Myers’s hysterical rant is irrelevant anyway, and is clearly an intentional attempt to stir up irrational anger to derail my highly reasonable comment. I provided Jason with what could be a productive and constructive opportunity to to set up a running commentary on different individuals’ definitions of feminists and feminism. That such a reasonable comment for such a reasonable dialogue would cause so much fear is quite interesting.

    Lastly, after having made accusation after accusation for months now about my habitual and continual telling of lies, I think both Jason (and Myers who has provided no evidence) needs to provide something more than one simple, basic misrepresentation as evidence of my evil nasty self.
23. Marshall says:

    February 16, 2012 at 6:31 pm AST

    John, have you ever considered that part of the problem might be the way in which you act in a consistently condescending manner towards people? That you make statements and then refuse to back them up while hypocritically insisting that anyone who calls you a liar back up that statement even after you have admitted yourself to misrepresenting people’s statements (which you’ve done SEVERAL TIMES, by the way)? Personally, my problem with you began when you called me a ‘hymen’ in response to a post that wasn’t even directed at you in the first place. I suggest you stop acting like you’re better than everyone else and start thinking about WHY you might be receiving the responses you are.

    In any event, you DESERVE to be banned at the nearest opportunity. You’ve been dismissive and mean spirited from your first appearance on this blog. You’re shitting all over threads that could be opportunities for worthwhile discussions with your patronizing nonsense. That you haven’t been banned yet is a testament to what Jason is willing to put up with in order to allow open comments. I would not have lasted so long.
24. John Greg says:

    February 16, 2012 at 7:59 pm AST

    Marshall said:

    “John, have you ever considered that part of the problem might be the way in which you act in a consistently condescending manner towards people?”

    Sure. But at least I don’t shriek at people and groundlessly accuse them of being disgusting frauds who scurry back to thier lairs to giggle over bad words and snicker over those stupid people on other blogs, or of being two-faced slimeballs who only pretend to promise to play fair when really they’ll just continue lying harder.

    Marshall, I am willing to provide back-up, evidence, quotes, citations, and links when and where I can.

    Here is another completely reasonable request: How about you provide a top five list of which specific statements of fact or other claims (other than basic opinions) I have made that you would most like to see backed-up?
25. Jason Thibeault says:

    February 16, 2012 at 8:24 pm AST

    My comment, with the highlighted salient point that John is “challenging” me over, as well as a link to clarify something I said:

    I can call you bigoted, mean-spirited sophists who aren’t afraid to stretch the truth, or even lie, to make the case that certain people are calling out as bad behaviour certain behaviours that you yourselves enjoy far too much. I can call you ponces, pseudointellectual assholes, possessing of precious little actual worldly knowledge except how to offend, and so steeped in your various antifeminist dogmas that you can’t come to common ground with anyone to argue honestly about it. I can call you arrogant and foolish bloviators. I can even go so far as to call you assholes.

    While I was generalizing, John was very helpful in saying this:

    Well, I think calling that a lie is a bit of a thin stretch. I would say that my statement that you “explained on one of [your] other blog posts a few weeks ago why masculine/male gender epithets are completely harmless, tons of fun, and when judiciously applied quite appropriate, whereas feminine/female gender epithets are bad, bad, bad mojo and proof of indefensible horribleness” is more of a slight misrepresentation and a somewhat egregious exaggeration than a lie. But, if you insist, okay, I lied. Nasty evil me.

    Except that I said “stretch the truth, or even lie”. This easily counts as the former, and the latter only by John Greg’s own admission. Several clauses in the italicized bit are blatantly wrong. Mischaracterizing someone intentionally is certainly falsehood, and I presume the tactic is intended to distract from the fact that the type of behaviour we’re calling out is your own.

    Regardless of whether you think Sommers’ idea of feminism (that people who want equality are good, but people who think women actually have it bad in some ways right now are in actuality trying to tear down men instead of elevating women) is the correct way of looking at things, and regardless of whether you believe she, your intellectual forebear, did not engage in calling people “gender traitor” by titling her book Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women while anyone who claims to be a feminist saying “I disagree with you” to a woman is engaged in calling them a “gender traitor”, it doesn’t honestly matter. I know I’m not going to convince you of anything. Bystanders, on the other hand, might benefit from seeing you demonstrate, time and again, how you’re an intellectually dishonest troll at every instance.

    Marshall is wrong. The only thing this shows is that I’ve been working too damned much these past five days, and simply haven’t had the will or energy to play John Greg’s ridiculous games. If you want to write up five points about my feminism and how it’s “gender feminism”, and how Sommers’ idea of feminism (or hell, about *anything*, given her conservatism) is valid in any way, you feel free. You don’t get to come on my blog and dictate what I must spend my precious little time doing if I’m to drag a rational and intellectually honest debate out of you. Especially since at this juncture, I seriously doubt that you’re capable, your exhortations to the contrary notwithstanding.
26. Marshall :

    February 16, 2012 at 9:18 pm AST

    Hey Jason, I apologize for presuming to know things I could not possibly have known. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, and I shouldn’t be trying to speak on your behalf.
27. Stacy says:

    February 17, 2012 at 12:01 am AST

    This was an interesting thread until John Greg tried to make it all about him.

    Anyhoo, back on topic–I very much agree with Giliell, here:

    …feminism 101 is fine and dandy but probably not the right time when the main goal is to reach out to a male rape survivor who identifies with traditional masculinity.

    The ad’s targeting men who do so identify. It’s OK to simplify the message a bit in order to reach people–trying to say too much or unpack the “real men” trope would dilute the ad’s power.
28. John Greg says:

    February 17, 2012 at 1:48 am AST

    Except, Stacy, if you read my actual comments you will see I really did no such thing until I came under attack.

    My first comment, currently #9 (http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/02/12/rape-survivor-campaign-in-uk-must-we-say-real-men/#comment-50829), stated full agreement and support with some things Jason said. That is certainly not about me.

    My second comment, currently #16 (http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/02/12/rape-survivor-campaign-in-uk-must-we-say-real-men/#comment-50829), was in partial agreement, partial disagreement with Jason, and included a bit where I tried to clarify what I felt was an inaccurate representation of my socio-political outlook. That’s not making it about me; that’s trying to answer a previous comment’s innaccuracies.

    My third post, currently # 17 (http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/02/12/rape-survivor-campaign-in-uk-must-we-say-real-men/#comment-50936), was a playful invitation for Jason to join in a sort of round-robin dialogue trying to create a definitive list of characteristics that define feminism. That’s certainly not about me.

    And then the Bullfrog arrived and started telling his porkies and misrepresenting me in an altogether unpleasant and slanderous way (which, as was his intent, opened up the gates for others to follow suit), so of course I had to try and defend myself. That’s what we do when unfairly attacked, don’t we?

    So c’mon Stacy, stop telling porkies and stay with the program.
29. Stephanie Zvan says:

    February 17, 2012 at 7:45 am AST

    Stacy is dead on, you narcissistic piece of filth. That first comment isn’t about the issue but about whether you approve of Jason, just like the rest of your commentary on this blog, John. You could have left a comment without that. Or, rather, a decent human being could have left a comment without that. You didn’t. You just kept going with the same crap that’s been clogging up Jason’s comments for months now. On a post about getting help to rape victims.

    No, I’m not going to link to where you were told you were already told where you’d lied. Everyone who cares in the least knows where it happened. Your objections don’t change the fact that you’ve characterized Jason’s statements in ways that simply aren’t true and that it was easy to point out the moment you tried to adopt a mantle of innocence.

    Just like the five people who give the tiniest of shits already know that you know nothing about feminism but have latched onto the manufactured objections of the right wing without understanding that they give you nothing more than labels. Funny how you’ll reply to Stacy, John, but can’t be bothered to do the work Jason set you.

    You realize you’re only here because he enjoys testing himself against your ideology, right? Fail to actually produce anything of substance (again, still), and he has no reason to keep you around. He’s not intimidated by your pretensions of being arbiter of all that is fair and honest in the atheist blogosphere. He just wants to hear your arguments.

    Though probably not on this thread. It was here for a different reason, asshole.
30. John Greg says:

    February 17, 2012 at 6:38 pm AST

    “Funny how you’ll reply to Stacy, John, but can’t be bothered to do the work Jason set you.”

    Patience young Steph, patience.

    Like Jason, I happen to be quite busy this week, and Jason’s comment requires a lot of response. My reply to Jason, including my list of some issues that I think characterize and/or define feminism and feminists, at least the feminist paradigm I support, is in the works.
31. Stacy says:

    February 17, 2012 at 7:44 pm AST

    lol. “It’s not all about me…I said this…then I said this…then I….”

    Men’s Rights Activism. Because somehow, somewhere, someone thinks the world doesn’t revolve around you.
32. John Greg says:

    February 17, 2012 at 8:49 pm AST

    For the record, here are some issues that I feel are critical to (and should define and characterise) feminism, whether it’s equity feminism, gender feminism, or radical feminism.

    1. There is no doubt in my mind that sexism exists in many ways and places throughout the world, and effective concsiousness raising and awareness education should be the goal of anyone who claims to be, or wants to be, a feminist.

    2. I believe that birth control, and other critical issues of family planning such as abortion, should be provided free of charge to all women (and men), and should absolutely be free of moral and or social shaming and/or condemnation.

    3. I believe that equal pay for equal work is an obvious, and to ignore such an obvious is profoundly wrong (I would expand that this issue should cover all such disparities, not just between women receiving less pay for equal work than men, but the obverse/opposite of that as well as class, colour/race, and other such socially constructed instances). I believe that there exists a wage gap in some places, in some careers, and to varying degrees around the world; however, I have not yet found any unambiguous evidence of consensus of how severe and to what varying degrees and specifically affecting whom the problem exists.

    4. I believe that feminism should encompass a broad range of humanist disparity issues, and not focus solely on women-only issues to the expense and cost of critical issues of disparity involving men, colour/race, class, and other socially consturcted divisions and disparities.

    5. I think that all people, of all genders, sexes, colours/races, social classes, and so on, should be provided the same opportunities to employment in light of having the same capability to do the job.

    6. I believe that all people, of all genders, sexes, colours/races, social classes, and so on, should receive the same general rights as determined and provided by a democratic, non-gender biased political process.
33. Jason Thibeault says:

    February 17, 2012 at 9:58 pm AST

    Wow. I agree with everything but the “however” clause in 3, and the distinction of “gender feminism” vs “equity feminism” considering they are entirely constructs built by Sommers and are largely in opposition with every wave of feminism with which I’m familiar, John.

    So, what the living hell do you hate so much about the Freethought Blogs feminists that you must disparage us as baboons and “free from thought” at every possible juncture? Is it just the language thing, the disdain for certain people who use certain verbal “tells”, for being very likely to be significantly misogynistic in certain thought and action patterns because they defend words that most women consider to be slurs?

    I have the feeling I’m going to regret asking this, mostly because this is the first glimmer of humanity and decency I’ve seen from you.
34. John Greg says:

    February 18, 2012 at 1:17 am AST

    “I have the feeling I’m going to regret asking this, mostly because this is the first glimmer of humanity and decency I’ve seen from you.”

    No, no, I don’t think you’ll regret it. Except maybe for my usual long-windedness.

    In all honesty, Jason, I think the biggest problem, not the only one, but the biggest comes down to the challenges of effective online communication.

    For example, the issues between people who do not share a specific localized culture and language (you’re IT; I’m English degree with a decade of technical writing — not worlds, or nations apart, but sometimes far enough), and a strong sociological, and/or socio-political agreement.

    Another of the biggest challenges of effective online communication is the lack of the unspoken visual cues — nods, head shakes, smiles, frowns; all those little things that help immensely to facilitate smooth communication. There’s a shitload of research pointing out how important all those online unattainable things are to effective communication.

    And let’s not forget about all the subtle sub-vocalisations that take place in personal communications, the grunts of disagreement, which don’t ruffle feathers, but which help guide the conversation in a different direction; the quiet hmms of tentative agreement which give the speaker extra confidence to extend their thought processes and to experiment with things they never thought before, like maybe even agreeing with an opponent’s heretofore disagreed-with position.

    “So, what the living hell do you hate so much about the Freethought Blogs feminists that you must disparage us as baboons and “free from thought” at every possible juncture? Is it just the language thing, the disdain for certain people who use certain verbal “tells”, for being very likely to be significantly misogynistic in certain thought and action patterns because they defend words that most women consider to be slurs?”

    I think that series of questions, and the answers that would go with them, are actually much more complicated, or perhaps convoluted and sophisticated, than they appear on the surface. And in all seriousness, I suspect each one of them could take us through an hour’s worth of conversation at the pub because in each instance they would bring forth from each of us calm yet strongly held disagreements and agreement that would expand the conversation into sophisticated territories that cannot be convered here, and which our slightly different cultural language — IT; tech writer — leads to confusion online, but a confusion that can be straightened out in person. We live in different provinces, though, so that’s a no-go.

    But I do not think this is really the ideal place to answer those questions. Aside from the issues of the challenges of online communication versus face-to-face, I also have little doubt that folks like Myers, Zvan, Laden, Aratina, julian, etc., are champing their bits in the wings just itching like poison ivy to charge forth and call me a sick liar, a disgusting skuzzball, a narcissistic piece of filth, a disgusting fraud, a two-faced slimeball, etc., ad infinitum — and maybe even to accuse you of having been taken in by John Greg’s pathetic fraud.

    If you have any interest in it, I’d be glad to carry this on over email, but I know that that is probably even a less effective approach.

    If you really, really want me to put myself in harm’s way (an exaggeration and stretch of the truth, I know, but it is intended as sardonic irony) I can even carry on in this comment thread.
35. Tristan says:

    February 18, 2012 at 2:23 am AST

    You may be surprised to know that I too agree with pretty much everything in John’s #32. As for why I seem to find myself “on the other side”, well… I’ve said it a few times already, but I’ll try again.

    It’s pretty much the same reason that courts will throw out evidence, no matter how damning of the defendant, if it was obtained illegally: because if you’re willing to abandon the rules for a specific cause, then those rules become meaningless – and in the long run, you’ll do damage not only to your own cause but to other worthy causes as well.

    No matter how important you think the cause is, it’s never ok to abandon honesty in its favour. Wait, strike that. The more important the cause, the more important it becomes to stick to the rules of honest discourse.

    Now, this next is going to sound incredibly harsh, but try to believe me when I tell you that this is my honest opinion.

    What I saw with elevatorgate and everything that followed afterwards was a wilful, even gleeful shedding of all standards. Blatant misrepresentations, guilt-by-association, fields of strawmen, all the tactics that would chewed up and spat out by the regulars here if coming from a creationist… suddenly were coming from the regulars here. As long as there was a merkin of deniability, certain leaders were quite happy even to misrepresent their own past selves – and the followers lapped it up (I’m looking at you, Stephanie Zvan and “Dear Dick”). Everything and anything was suddenly a-ok, as long as it was in support of the tribe.

    Yes, there were a few (a very few) really nasty characters arrayed against you. Yes, they deserved to be slapped down. But they should have been slapped down honestly – not for their sake, but for your own. Instead, a wave of shit was sloshed in all directions – it was certainly effective on most of the real nasties, but a whole bunch of it got onto people who really didn’t deserve it, and a remarkable quantity splashed right back onto your own community.

    I have a challenge for you (and for anyone else who’s interested): go back to some of those old threads, and read through them with fresh eyes. Don’t read for content so much, though: try to ignore the names on each comment, and just focus your attention on who’s being honest and who’s just decided to lose themselves in the fight. Then come back and tell me I’m wrong.
36. PZ Myers says:

    February 18, 2012 at 9:40 am AST

    Like Jason, I happen to be quite busy this week, and Jason’s comment requires a lot of response.

    And then the self-centered asshole blathers on and on. Seriously, Jason, he’s just made this whole thread all about him, at length, and he’s no doubt reveling in all the attention paid to him. Shut him down.
37. Jason Thibeault says:

    February 18, 2012 at 11:03 am AST

    We have a difference in styles, PZ. To my own sanity’s detriment, I feed trolls.

    However, everyone has a point in that this “tribal warfare” stuff has no place on this thread about getting male rape victims the help they need. Expect a bunch of comments here to disappear into their own post as soon as I can manage.

So let’s hear it, then, John. What exactly — specifically, with links, if you can manage — caused you to side with Franc Hoggle et al, those nasty nasties who “should have been slapped down honestly” who believe Rebecca Watson is somehow either a liar about what happened to her, or is cynically manipulating the situation, or is overzealous about her feminism to the point where it’s getting in the way of all the serious man-business of skepticism and atheism? Why would you sacrifice your pretensions toward intellectual honesty at the altar of delusion about Watson rather than actually just listening to what she has to say, considering so many others are saying the same damned things — that there are certain actions, like hurling sexist slurs for instance, that create a chilly climate for women in the skeptic/atheist movements? And that folks like you are evidently more concerned with intellectual honesty coming from the people who are reacting emotionally and negatively to instances of that tonedeafness to sexism, than from your own side?

I fully realize I’m feeding the troll, and that if John Greg is any bit as narcissist as he’s shown himself in past threads on FtB, Scienceblogs and elsewhere, all I’m going to do is invite more bloviating and unsubstantiated nonsense about past butthurts at best, and at worst invoke yet another incursion from the folks at ERV’s slimepit threads to tell me that I’m a “long-winded prat” (I’m looking at you John). Or call me a baboon. Or “free from thought”. Or my personal favorite, “Justin Bieber”. But whatever. If you commenters don’t want to participate in the shitstorm this post is going to cause, more power to you.

But do remember, this is my pub, so I set the topics of conversation. I’d actually like to hear what John Greg thinks is the core problem here, and if he’s honestly willing to engage in some bridge-building, I’d be very pleasantly surprised. I don’t pretend he’s going to, though.

And as the pub owner, expect this topic to be heavily moderated for my own sanity’s sake, whether I actually engage in proactive moderation or not. If you don’t like that possibility, fuck right off. That comment field is not for you.

In the meantime, have a damn cool Skyrim bard cover by Malukah, who is good enough to provide this song free at her website.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z9TdDCWN7g