The panel was discussing topics the audience had voted for in the days leading up to it... at this particular moment we were discussing whether or not women felt that men bombard them with their attempts at "hitting on" them... whether or not it runs them off because there's obviously not nearly as many females as men in this movement. Of course there isn't a complete lack of females, there aren't as many as we'd like to see, but then let me direct you here for my thoughts on that. Summary: The movement shouldn't change, the women should.
Tell me why. SOMEONE, seriously tell me why the word "female" is offensive. Tell me why it's any different from the word "women" ... my initial reaction to her bringing this up was... what are we supposed to call us? She apparently prefers the word "women." It's less sexist obviously because.... there are no tall letters towering arrogantly over other letters...? Look at that "f" and that "l" obviously suppressing the rest of the puny letters that make up the very word!!!!! Sickening isn't it!? Terribly important isn't it!? *stomps around angrily*
There were two responses from the panel... one was from me after I recovered from shock... I merely said, "Aren't these words interchangeable?" The other was from, my new friend, Heath who said, "Would you rather us call you the weaker sex?" If this runs you off then you're taking yourself far too seriously.
If equality is what you want then you're going to have to stop begging for special treatment. Any man that made an equally embarrassing melodramatic to-do like this woman did would have caught equal shit for doing so. If you can't take that and want special treatment when you spew stupid shit from the hole in your face then I'm sorry you'll never know equality. Essentially what you're saying is that "I'm a girl and you should go out of your way to be nice to me." <--- That's demeaning. Fuck that. I don't care what genitals you possess, if you don't think before you speak and say something stupid, you deserve any and all of whatever criticism follows. Speaking up and speaking your mind is GREAT, but then going on to retreat and whine when someone calls you on your bullshit is a fucking disservice to the rest of us FEMALES who aren't so easily fucking offended. If you're going to be outspoken and have your opinion heard, be prepared to stand your fucking ground or else shut the fuck up because you're an embarrassment to my gender.
(OH AND BTW: If you were listening at all you could see that if there were ANY real feminists in the entire crowded event it was SEAN FAIRCLOTH! The misrepresentation of his speech is the most disgusting thing I've encountered as a result of the convention. Not the use of some word over the use of another word. Sean issued that million dollar "challenge" to both men and WOMEN exactly the same way for each side in order to illustrate a point... not get your panties in a self-righteous wad.)
Right on!
ReplyDeleteThanks!
ReplyDeleteYour new friend, Heath.
I don't know where you got your privileged penis from, but you should stop typing with it.
ReplyDelete[Tell me why it's any different from the word "women"]
ReplyDeleteBecause 'woman' specifically applies to humans in the same way that 'doe' specifically applies to deer. 'Female', however, is a generic term that some may feel is overly dehumanising.
But you strike me as someone fluent in the language. I don't know why you feel this passive-aggressive bullying is appropriate.
Since when is "generic" dehumanizing? "Cunt" is dehumanizing.
ReplyDeleteThank you!! - A Skeptical Female
ReplyDeleteThe woman in question asked the audience if anyone agreed with her by a show of hands. Only one other woman raised her hand. Clearly the audience was not offended by using the appropriate term "female," and so we moved on.
ReplyDeleteI wonder why the bloggers over at blaghang failed to mention that. Oh yeah... because it wouldn't serve their purpose of painting everyone as sexists.
If their commentary and characterization of Sean Faircloth's speech was called into question so much that Jen had to delete it... doesn't it stand to reason that their ENTIRE characterization needs to be called into question?
I hope the women of NAFA and Alabama Atheists write a retort to the blatant mischaracterization and falsehoods in the tripe hosted at blaghag (you know, that sexist word... hag).
When referring to humans scientifically as the human animal, it's completely appropriate to refer to female and male humans - It's the scientific term for the gender. It's laughable to assume that if the terms are used equivalently in the SAME SPEECH that there's an offense intended by it.
ReplyDeleteFemale refers to sex, which is supposed to be gender neutral. Though, some women find it offensive because the history of objectifying women. Gender, unlike sex, though, is a social construct and is laden with myth and much cultural baggage. --BB3
ReplyDeleteI sit corrected. I still say that it was the appropriate term used in context. This is an obvious case of LOOKING for an offense.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right on the money. I love Jen McCreight--I'm a regular reader of her blog and a follower of hers on Twitter. As far as atheism/skepticism goes, I think she is generally spot on and very clever. Truly, I am a fan. But she has what I call the "feminist chip" on her shoulder, big time. I don't doubt her contentions (or those of her guest posters) about sexism in the atheist community and elsewhere. The site "fatuglyorslutty.com" shows how rampant and awful it is in the online gaming community. So, I sympathize, and yes, men need to behave much better. I believe that when people like Ms. McCreight & her guest posters get into a twist over silly, irrelevant linguistic semantics of language (and that's how this incident sounds to me after reading both accounts), that kind of ridiculous, butterfly-wings sensitivity detracts from more serious and legitimate concerns and problems that women face. It makes men like me take them less seriously on this issue, and surely that is the last thing that they want. I completely agree with the fury of Jen's guest poster over her rage at this: "it’s totally ok for guys to be assholes. Women should just STFU when men treat them like sex objects." (If, indeed, that was really the message being conveyed. Again, because of the over-sensitivity displayed elsewhere, I have to question other perceptions.) But for that one woman ('female'?) to leave the room bawling? Gimme a break. --Jack
ReplyDeleteJack:
ReplyDeleteThat was nowhere near the message conveyed at all. Thank you for your post!
Sometimes people don't look for it, so much as see it were it was unintended. Especially if they have been sensitized to it through personal experience or education. It's not uncommon for mis-perception and mis-understanding to explode into animus. It happens with race and gender. Maybe someone should calmly ask them why many attending females perceive it differently and stress that no sexism was intended and gauge their reaction. That would tell a lot. I wasn't there so really I have no right to an opinion on the specifics, but these things do happen and a conciliatory stance can defuse so many situations. --- BB3
ReplyDeleteWow, "linguistic semantics of language"? Is that from the Department of Redundancy Department? I really need to not drink and write. :-)
ReplyDelete[Clearly the audience was not offended by using the appropriate term "female,"]
ReplyDeleteThere are a bunch of sociological/psychological reasons at play regarding why people do or don't raise their hands in a group setting. To take from that that "clearly the audience was not offended" is naive at best.
Anonymous Said...
ReplyDelete"I don't know where you got your privileged penis from, but you should stop typing with it."
That's right. Because only men are allowed to type assertive thoughts. And must do so with their penis.
Why, just imagine all the wagging penises at the signing of the US Constitution. Heavens!
Besides, everyone knows vaginas are demure and cannot write. They are quiet and invisible.
(Seriously, is the irony completely lost on you?)
What, exactly, differentiates a "privileged" penis from the standard kind? Is it an upgrade or a downgrade? How do I know which kind I have? Ryan Reynolds has been with Alanis Morrisette, Scarlett Johansson & Sandra Bullock. That sounds like a *very* privileged penis.--Jack
ReplyDeleteIf being called Female is the only thing you have to complain about, then your life is pretty good. Now sit down and STFU.
ReplyDelete@BB3 - Female refers to sex? Of course it does, so what? Male refers to sex too! And just how is the term female supposed to be "gender neutral" anyway? If you want to get "gender neutral" you should use the term "person" or "human". I think your social construct has some serious baggage and is laden in myth. You should seriously seek professional help... your not right in the head.
ReplyDeleteNot one for making distinctions between things like biological categories and social categories, huh? Maybe you should use an encyclopedia to look up the distinction. They are important, especially if you want to understand how prejudices and social expectations grew up around mere facts of biological specialization. --BB3
ReplyDeleteFrom Jen: "Having a vagina doesn't automatically make you immune from being sexist, and disregarding others opinions makes you part of the problem."
ReplyDeleteLook look now I'm the sexist! WE'RE ALLLLLL TEH SEXIST! Overusing a term renders it meaningless.
"Look look now I'm the sexist! WE'RE ALLLLLL TEH SEXIST! Overusing a term renders it meaningless"
ReplyDeleteI read this wrong and thought you said "sexiest" and was going to agree. Does that make me sexist too? - Wilco
Apparently, my first comment touched a nerve, because Ms. McCreight reprinted it on Blag Hag and even tweeted it (yay!), and then called me a troll (awww :-( ).
ReplyDeleteJen (I'm replying here, since obviously you are reading these comments): you didn't make me uncomfortable, and I did not intend to upset you. I agree with you on some issues, not on others. I do not believe that simply disagreeing with you makes me a "troll." I did say that I believe you have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to feminist issues. That description was intended to characterize a disposition that I have perceived from you in some of your past blog posts, an attitude that seems to be deliberately seeking offense.
If this perception is mistaken on my part, then please educate me. If you took this characterization as a personal attack on you, then I apologize. It was my intent to address an attitude, a position, an opinion--not you as a person. I hope that you will see the difference. I think (I hope) that we can disagree and still be friendly. I really do admire you, and I'd hate for you to think negatively of me.
I should also say: I was not present at this meeting. I cannot say what "really" happened from my own perspective. Perhaps that means that I am speaking out of turn here. Hopefully others will tell me if that is the case. I have based my response solely on my reading of the posts here and at Blag Hag. Based on that, I have to say that the account I read here appears, in my humble, unqualified opinion, to be the more reasonable, level-headed account and response.
Again, I am sorry if this offends or upsets you, Jen. If it does, then perhaps you are, in fact, finding offense where none is intended?
Best regards,
Jack
One of those crazy sexist Alabama females posted a response as well:
ReplyDeletehttp://themindofnicole.blogspot.com/2011/02/tits-of-gtfo.html
"There are a bunch of sociological/psychological reasons at play regarding why people do or don't raise their hands in a group setting. To take from that that "clearly the audience was not offended" is naive at best."
ReplyDeletePerhaps, but none of those women had a problem raising their hands about how easy it was for them to get laid at a convention because women are the gatekeepers of sex. But the bloggers got Sean Faircloth's messaged screwed up, too... so what do I know. ;)
Speaking as a female, this is bull. The "female" who ran out the room clutching pearls offends me because now males might think I would act in such a manner or be offended by the most trivial things. It just adds to a stereotype and causes people to not be themselves in case some person is very easy to offend.
ReplyDeleteI would hate to see this woman head towards the fainting couch should she encounter websites like fark or 4chan.
Sorry to sound so aggressive in my post, but it is truly hard to convey much I was rolling my eyes when I first read about this incident. Some people are just looking to be offended.
@Calculon, my thoughts exactly. One thing that really irks me is when men (that obviously don't know me very well) feel the need to apologize when they so much as cuss in front of me... and it's because of things like this that makes the rest of us seem easily offended over trivial shit.
ReplyDeleteJen-Feminism: calling a woman an "asshole" is much better than calling her a female.
ReplyDeleteYou know what the pathetic thing about this whole issue is? Every woman in NAFA has so far condemned the falsehoods in the account on Jen's blog. But rational discourse is irrelevant when you have an agenda to push and you misconstrue the facts and bend the truth to fit that agenda.
The fact that Jen had to remove the criticism of Sean Faircloth's of speech because of concerns that it was mischaracterized should lend credence to the fact that the rest of the blog is equally a mischaracterization of the actual events.
It's unfortunate that someone was offended, but to completely stop a convention and change tactics because one person is upset at one word is just asinine at best.
What about the vegetarians and vegans that were offended at my podcast comment about PETA standing for Pretty Edible and Tasty Animals and how one shouldn't cry over running over a squirrel? Where is the irate blog about that?
Perhaps the bloggers should have actually taken the time to talk to the rest of the females that attended the SERAM. Of course, that wouldn't help further your agenda, would it?
Blair, I am also a vegetarian and sometimes people worry that they will offend me if they even order meat at a restaurant after being read the riot act by other vegetarians they have met. I could care less as I know humans evolved to eat a varied diet including meat, and I am the weird one. I have my own reasons and I keep them to myself. And I would even choose to wear a "People Eating Tasty Animals" before a regular PETA shirt any day of the week. I have been a vegetarian since 1987, and I still have friends who have known me for years who were not aware.
ReplyDeleteAgain, some people are looking to be offended
@Calculon I have really appreciated your comments here. I cannot count how many times I have found myself walking on egg shells--going to extremes to be careful (which makes me really banal because I am pretty un-PC and NOT careful)--because someone in a group of friends clearly has an emotional minefield laid around them vis-a-vis a given topic.
ReplyDeleteMy other friends see this odd change in my behavior and it weirds them out, and vice versa with them, because they are doing the same thing. The result is that everyone else is uncomfortable because they are trying to avoid getting jumped on.
As you pointed out, asinine for everyone else to completely change course because one person is irrationally wearing their emotions on their sleeve.
-Jack
P.S. - I do NOT think all women are like this woman who ran out crying, precisely because I know there are women like you out there. They are some of my best friends. Thank you for your excellent posts.
Jen: "If those replies really are from Blair Scott of Am Atheists, consider my scholarship application rescinded. Don't want AA's money anymore."
ReplyDeleteSo you just posted a guest blog that trashed American Atheists without actually checking into the validity of it. And we know that to be the case because you had to delete the comments about Sean Faircloth's speech, but you just assumed that the rest was accurate?
And now you're upset that I dare call you on it?
Good grief...
Thanks Jack.
ReplyDeleteI also rarely run into women like the one who ran out of the room. In fact, where I work, I am the one most likely to make crude jokes (I blame the internet) I think I would have face-palmed were I present at this conference.
"Trashed American Atheists"? It criticized one aspect of one panel, and one speech, while saying how successful AA has become. What's really tarnishing American Atheists' image isn't that guest post, but your completely unprofessional comments as a board member disregarding the concerns of two female attendees (hint: argument from popularity is a logical fallacy), not to mention the rude, hateful, and sexist comments from people who also attended the conference. I would have happily attended an AA conference after reading Sharon and Lyz's posts. Now that I've seen the reactions? Count me out.
ReplyDeleteLook at Anonymous(BB3) trying to take me to school. I typically try not to respond to idiot's but you don't sound that stupid. Confused maybe, but not stupid.
ReplyDeleteI understand perfectly well the differences between biological and social categories. The context of this blog post and the context of the events at the SERAM were clearly biological, not social. If you were at the SERAM then I eagerly await your rebuttal. However, since you were probably not there, and you have taken that libelous blog post by Sharron Moss and Lyz Liddell as the truth regarding the events at the SERAM what kind of skeptic can you claim to actually be?
I was there. I was on the panel in question sitting next to Mary and I can most assuredly tell you that it was not a discussion about whether the term "female" was offensive or not. Nor was the misrepresentation of Sean Faircloth's presentation even remotely accurate.
To be honest with you, nobody I know really cares whether they are called male or female, biologically or socially. Were women oppressed for thousands of years? Yes, and I fully sympathize with that. However, to imply that the people in that room at the SERAM meant to offend or further oppress women is absolutely ludicrous.
The young lady (wait, is that sexist?) who stood up and asked if we thought that the term "female" was offensive and implied that it referred to women as "cattle" was not only inappropriate for the context of the discussion but it was sexist and petty. When 99.99% of the people in the room disagreed with her, she walked out of the room obviously embarrassed.
She asked an inappropriate question and when she didn't like the answer she decides to get her friends to bash everyone at the Secular Coalition and American Atheists who worked so hard to put on a successful event for our mutual cause? How does that help? We need to be working together, not insulting each other with name calling and childish word games; we have bigger fish to fry.
The point is, defending events that didn't happen, particularly when you didn't even witness them, is not a redeeming endeavor for anyone... male or female.
@Jen: "What's really tarnishing American Atheists' image isn't that guest post, but your completely unprofessional comments as a board member disregarding the concerns of two female attendees"
ReplyDeleteJen, we have video of this event. We are not disregarding concerns, we are commenting on the blatant misrepresentations made by Sharon.
Jen: "not to mention the rude, hateful, and sexist comments from people who also attended the conference."
Jen, every single woman who attended the conference and commented on your blog disagrees with Sharon's characterizations of the events in question. I have to ask... why are you taking one person's point of view over so many others?
Jen: "I would have happily attended an AA conference after reading Sharon and Lyz's posts. Now that I've seen the reactions? Count me out."
Jen, this is the most confusing part. I spoke at length with lyz and some with Sharon. I too would have happily attended an AA conference based on their comments alone. What happened?
Jen, I think the appropriate action at this point will be to get you the video as soon as we can. I also think that we can compile a point-by-point presentation to show why we feel that Sharon has misrepresented (Possibly even slandered) Sean Faricloth.
Is this an agreeable action with you?
You can reach me directly at ssavage@atheists.org
Scott Savage
Alabama State Director
American Atheists.
www.atheists.org
I think the problem here is some assumption that Sharon and Lyz are not genuine in their reactions, or are promoting some mysterious "agenda" (WTF?). Like it or not, they were offended by Sean's speech, and by the panel, and rather than respond to their arguments, there has been much resorting to logical fallacies, attacking the source, and criticizing them for being too sensitive.
ReplyDeleteNow, admittedly, those arguments were couched in a fairly inflammatory blog post to begin with, and it's natural reaction, when feeling unfairly criticized, to get defensive. But they were nevertheless based on genuine emotional reactions. It's possible that Sharon and Lyz were primed to be offended by Sean's speech, based on earlier behavior at the conference, and to some extent saw what they "wanted" or "expected" to see, but still... their reactions were genuine, even if the blog post was written in anger.
In the meantime, what the blog post was originally supposed to be about (Does this sort of behavior drive some women away?) has totally gotten lost. Clearly, it does drive SOME women away (like Sharon, Lyz, and others), so the answer is yes. What (if anything) should be done about it? Well, I suppose there's a legitimate debate going on somewhere under all the anger and insults, but I'm having a hard time seeing it.
Speaking as a male atheist who has never been seriously involved in any organized atheism movement, I'm somewhat appalled at how a group of people who ostensibly pride themselves on being rational have resorted to emotional flamethrowing and personal attacks. And for the love of FSM, if you even THINK about responding "well, they started it,", consider how much that makes you sound like you're 5 years old.
There's an old adage about arguing on the Internet that is getting very much proved here.
I have only been to a few atheist/skeptical conventions. Had a great time at all of them. I have never attended an all-female one. If I came across one, I would in truth worry that it would have a higher than normal percentage of attendees like how I am picturing Sharon and Lyz to be. Could my characterization be wrong? Certainly. But this episode is not curing me of my own prejudice of easily offended women that will feel fine to correct me and point out that if I am not offended about something, then I have internalized the sexism endemic in our culture.
ReplyDeleteI came here from reading at BlagHag, I have a dick, and I have no problem with being called a dick (but thanks for asking!) because sometimes I am.
ReplyDeleteI just read both angles on this matter, and it sounds like the whole event was a chronic fail. We have goverment "public consultancy" schemes here in the UK where members of the public who care about some kind of issue become incensed and frustrated at a panel of officials who clearly have their own agenda and just dont give a damn. These people get emotional, and are then a hell of a lot easier to discount as being irrational and therefore not worthy of being part of the debate. I love politics!
Anyway, here's my little bit of sexism... I reckon that womenfolk have a disadvantage here what with being all emotional and such. I dont believe that you can be expected to be taken seriously if you cant control yourself (maybe thats just how I think because I'm a guy?) and it sounds like she went into a meltdown. Kinda dissapointing that it all turned into a battle of semantics. It seems like there is some fruit in this pie, but everyone is nibbling the crust.
At the risk of being accused of being sexist:
ReplyDeleteIf human males are expected to rise above their evolutionary tendencies to not degrade and objectify human females, is it unreasonable to expect human females to rise above the evolutionary tendencies to react emotionally to stress?
To clarify: Just as not all human males are sexist pigs, not all females react emotionally to stressful stimuli. However, if there is to be any sort of equality of the sexes, I think it behooves both sexes to be fair, impartial, reasonable and to work to not fall into "traditional" gender roles.
Thanks for posting. It's good to get a first hand account from someone there. I've been reading Jen for qhile now, and unfortunately, I have lost a lot of rrespect and trust for her writing.
ReplyDeleteOh, and that's not to say there aren't female sexist pigs or overly emotional males either. I'm simply trying to point out the documented tendencies of species behavior.
ReplyDeleteOh, and I think it does a disservice to all bloggers everyone if you don't reserve judgment BEFORE you post. If you want to be taken seriously as "journalists", then fact check your articles. If you don't, then don't be surprised if you get vociferous negative reactions.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't there. I don't know exactly what happened, and I'm reserving judgment until I see the video. Because you didn't do the same by allowing the guest post BEFORE you have seen the video, you have caused this firestorm over an organization and people that I respect very highly. THIS is what pisses me off.
Even if your post is accurate, Jen, you've done the entire community a disservice with your actions. Was it so important that you make your political point that you couldn't wait a day to do due diligence?
And before you say anything, I'm certain that if you asked the organizers for the video and told them why, they would have obliged. If they hadn't within a reasonable timeframe, then you would have every justifiable reason to go ahead with the article.
ReplyDeleteThis is what journalists do.
(BTW -> My last two posts were posted on Blag Hag, and directed towards Jen, not JesusFetusFajitaFishsticks, for clarity and to avoid confusion.)
ReplyDelete"whether or not it runs them off because there's obviously not nearly as many females as men in this movement."
ReplyDeleteSee, I normally don't have a problem with being called female- it is an accurate description of my sex. However, when in the same statement you use "men," a specifically human term, and "females," a generic term that can be used for half of all animals that use sexual reproduction, I start raising an eyebrow. Is there a reason why you used a human term for one sex category and a generic term for the other? It sounds a bit like you're trying to make a point about which group is more human. If you want to use scientific terms for sexual categories, use female and male. If you want to talk about human gender issues, use men and women. Don't mix the categories, it makes you sound sexist even if that's not your intention.
@Angela: I think the reason she used the term "female" (along with woman/women), and the term "men" exclusively was in order to be sarcastically ironic. I find it hard to be believe she was being sexist.
ReplyDelete(including the term "male" in this comment in order to be complete)
I see many comments suggest that no one intended anything sexist (at the event in question, in subsequent comments, etc.). I should certainly hope not, but does anyone really think that sexism has to be intentional to be harmful?
ReplyDeletePlease note that I am not saying the event was sexist, whether intentional or not, because I wasn't there.
-Jenea
Thank you Andrew, I appreciate your view - it's one of the few reasonable comments I've read in this thread. I've now read both this post and the post at Blag Hag, and frankly have no idea what the panel was like. But I get the impression that neither side is really clearly representing what happened. Also, I think it somewhat ironic that Ms. JesusFetusFajitaFishsticks would get on a woman's case for being "overly-emotional" (she may well have been) in what can only be termed an overly-emotional post. You're complaining about a woman getting offended for no good reason because... you're offended that people care that she got offended? I'm confused. Maybe you should have taken some time to cool down before you responded to the guest post on Jen's blog. Then you could have carefully considered the arguments and addressed all their points without, you know, using "fuck" every third word and having the blood pounding in your veins.
ReplyDeleteCan I ask - if they were using "female" nearly exclusively (from what it sounds like) were they also using only "male" or were they also using man (men), guy, etc? Sounds like a bit of over-reaction but if only female was used and male was used sparingly, I can see the point of view of some women who could feel this means they aren't equal enough to be compared to a "man". - C.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous whose comment begins "Thank you Andrew...",
ReplyDeleteYou've obviously missed the point. My problem is with the unwarranted offense and the following misrepresentation of not just the panel but the entire organization and especially Sean Faircloth's speech. Passion is one thing, but asking for special treatment because they have lady parts implies the very weakness they pretend to fight. Lets get up in arms over something meaningful and check this tripe at the door.
@S. Moore.
ReplyDeleteUmm, nope. I'm not defending, I'm saying that I've watched this unfold here, on Jen's post and on the NAFA board and no one for one freaking second has even admitted that maybe the two people in question had some point, or that even had the charity to think that maybe they simply misunderstood and tried to handle the matter accordingly. It went straight from look at this to LOOK AT WHAT THESE FEMINAZI CUNT DELICATE FLOWER BITCH DYKES DID. Not rational, not careful, and really not at all charitable. Two wrongs don't make a right. And obviously you haven't been paying attention to what I was saying, in context and the reasonably careful way that I have tried to phrase it. You should be more careful about name-calling guy. I looked over my posts and I did't say anything splenetic or untoward. Which is my point. You guys should read everything with the nicest possible spin on it and then when you have sounded things out and found that the benefit of the doubt you gave was unjustified NUKE THE FIELD. --BB3
Sorry, no on but Mr. Savage. I think the post, Jen's complicity therein, and the vehement responses on all sides were just uncalled for...from what I know. But my opinions, to the extent I care to have them, have been about how the event transpired, not what actually happened at SERAM.--- BB3
ReplyDeleteAs anyone with a background in gender studies can tell you, a "female" is not the same as a "woman", nor is a "man" the same as a "male". "Female" is used to describe biological sex (either genotypic or phenotypic sex), while "woman" is used to describe gender.
ReplyDeleteGender is a far more complicated term, and I acknowledge that there is controversy over the exact meaning of the term. At the very least, it seems to include information about a person's psychological identity and perception of their social role--information that is NOT similarly included in descriptions of their sex.
If you're discussing a topic like women in atheism, it is at the very least inaccurate to talk about them as merely "females". I can also see why some people would take it as offensive, especially (as Angela pointed out), you used "female" in the same sentence you used "man".
The panel discussion is up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBuYUJ4YCEI
ReplyDeleteHaving seen the video of the discussion, it's fairly obviously that the "female/male" discussion is moot. In places where the word "female" was used, the word "male" was used as well - Cries of "sexism" are total bullshit. It's obvious that the speakers were trying to be even handed by using those terms. The accusation of bias is laughable (As well as the joke that was commented on during this event.) Looking over the crowd, I don't see a general feeling of "disgust", or "offendedness" or whatever.
That's my judgment on the matter. Given that those cries were overblown, it seems to me that Jen and the original writers owe the community an apology.
Oh, and to those who say "Well, both sides are at fault", I cry bullshit as well. Cries of things like "racism", "sexism", etc are serious charges in the Atheist movement. In a community of intellectuals, this is the equivalent of calling names and committing slander or libel. To an intellectual, that's a heinous crime. It's completely natural to be vociferously angry if the charge is felt to be incorrect, and to lash BACK out at the people who lashed out at you.
ReplyDeleteIt behooves all of us to take a moment and find out the truth before making those kinds of claims. In that respect, I point the finger at Jen and company for failing all of us.
If jesusfetusfajitafishsticks was indeed the lone woman on the panel, having watched the video, I can see why she has posted this ridiculously aggressive attack on the audience member who had the courage to ask them to stop and consider their language. Nice way to tell the audience member she is just wrong to feel her feelings. JFFFS was extremely timid and weak, and "Um like, I am married so I am off limits, hur hur." and the ass who suggested calling women "the weaker sex" - the implication is that you should be happy we call you female, imagine how much worse we could be. derp. Very stupid panel.
ReplyDelete@Lymie, the problem is with the people who blatantly misrepresented the entire event... and assassinated Sean Faircloth's character.
ReplyDeleteActually, during the panel I could not relate to the question as well as I thought a SINGLE member of the audience could because I was already married and with my husband upon joining a group. I thought some input from someone that has really had to deal with this upon joining would have been more of a contribution than I could have given. Input on the subject at hand would have been nice, instead we got interrupted and derailed. However, my main concern was the misrepresentation of events. The video is irrefutable evidence that she was not "attacked" by the panel... I merely said I felt the two words were interchangeable and the "weaker sex" comment was obviously done in jest.
What this boils down to is that there is a specific group of women that object to any man who has any thing to say about women's issues.
"What this boils down to is that there is a specific group of women that object to any man who has any thing to say about women's issues."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely not, you completely miss the point, Jesusfuckingfishsticks, mansplaining is offensive, when men explain to women what their experience means and why they shouldn't feel they way they do. Your panel was discussing how to encourage women to be involved in atheist events, and instead of taking seriously a suggestion from the audience, a panel of 5 men and you, ridicule the woman and all her supporters. You were not "interrupted and derailed" ; with a moments reflection and introspection, you could have considered your language.
The fact that you and your commenters are so aggressive in trying to squash the argument, and are so intent on "being right" instead of hearing anything, tells me you are very un-self-aware, and have some fear of disrupting the status quo, sexist society is all you know, and so it seems natural to you.
This post was awesome. I felt so duped by first believing Sharon's post after I saw the footage on YouTube. I wrote about it myself as well on my blog, There Are Four Lights.
ReplyDeleteThere was no inequality with the term female because they used the term "male" during the discussions as well.
The point is, imagine this was about attracting more african-americans into atheist conventions, and all the white members of the board kept referring to them as "blacks", even they were being superficially concerned and understanding of african-americans needs and concerns. One such "black" gets up and say "why don't you use some other term, like african-american or non-caucasian?", and the answer would be, in the same jocuous tone, "would you rather we called you negro?! Ormaybe coon?!". It wouldn't really happen would it, and if it did, well, probably the black panthers would come back from the past and "kick the one who made that comment ass" and everyone would support them. The fact this attitude towards a woman is not getting universal condemnation says a lot about the general male chauvinism present in our society!
ReplyDeleteAnd I think the authos of this post should seriously rethink her feminism, being in the kitchen, or wherever else she likes to think about stuff!
Because of course we all know that we afro-americans, when offended, like to send our "peeps" after individuals to kick their "silly white ass". We're just like that, you know, so making that kind of comparison is just fine.
ReplyDeleteAfter the fatwa envy, I raise my glass to the BPP envy.
I've just watched the video in question (PZ Myers linked several of these threads on his blog today so you may experience another wave of posts) and I disagree with earlier assertions that the panel was egalitarian in their termiology. Several panelists--unconsciously, probably--regularly paired the terms 'females' and 'men'. Before I began reading commentary and blogs about the issue I noticed that this caused the discourse to sound awkward. In all probability the speakers' diction flowed from their desire to avoid contentious terminology, but this inconsistency unfortunately made it contentious, or at least drew attention to it. In the context of the discussion at hand, 'women and men' would have been the most appropriate terms, but 'males and females' would not have been out of place in a room full of academics. While I didn't find the error personally offensive, the grammatically incorrect juxtaposition of the two terms certainly set off my pedantry alarm.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Lymie. There is a tremendous lack of awareness here. The idea that something may be "said in jest" and still be a sexist denigration of women is so obvious and elementary to human relationships that it beggars belief that it is being used here as a defense. Honestly, saying cruel things under the guise of humor is classic passive-aggression. Does this really have to be explained?
ReplyDeleteThe irony of defending what some have found offensive to women, in a session devoted to discovering how to make women feel more welcome, by telling people that having lady parts does not grant them special treatment, is fantastically bizarre. I honestly wouldn't be able to remain in the same room as a person who said such a thing, and I certainly wouldn't want to associate with them.
Tell me, is the woman who complained more likely to come back or less? Are other women in the audience who may have been offended but were uncomfortable going against the majority more or less likely to return? What about the women who read about it, and read the idiotic and sexist defenses offered here and in other comment threads -- are they more or less likely to feel that an atheist convention would be a good experience?
Conversely, who would be more likely to want to go to an atheist convention after this? Besides men's rights advocates, I can't think of anyone. Obviously, do whatever you want, but if you're trying to increase participation by women, I think you're doing it wrong.
Here's a clue about the response of the women at the conference: perhaps it was a self-selected group. I purposely did not attend because there was nothing for me there.
ReplyDeleteI'm not opposed to attending atheist conferences, and I actually enjoy being able to socialize and engage with other atheists.
I guess I can at least feel good knowing that I made the right decision for myself by staying out of NAFA. I prefer my enlightenment to be a little less obscured by cultural baggage.
The panel's "discussion" was a waste of time. That woman tried to bring up a valid concern, but the entire panel was unable to legitimately address one issue. What a pathetic joke.
ReplyDeleteThis sort of thing is the reason why I prefer to label myself as a 'gender equalitist' or just for gender equality instead of a feminist. Feminism unfortunately has a few vocal, but very misguided women who are quick to demonize even the littlest things, helping to perpetuate the 'feminists are overly sensitive' stereotype.
ReplyDeleteA friend of mine told me once how, while working at a university in the late 80s, he held a door open for a woman who proceeded to throw a can of soda at him, because she felt offended that he was treating her as if she were too weak to open it herself because she was a woman, accusing him of sexism. Never mind that he was a gay male, or that she happened to be carrying several books, all she saw in that situation was a man holding a door for a woman, not a human holding a door for another human.
I think while there are many legitimate cases of things like sexism, racism, ageism and so on in our society, even today, it's important not to let yourself become so zealous as to become offended to the littlest of things.
I'm not here to argue, but to ask the question: why hasn't anyone pointed out that the term male atheist was used aswell? I might not have been as frequently, but it was certainly there a few times.
ReplyDeleteGenesis 2:23 - "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
ReplyDeleteEvidence that female is the better word to use as an atheist.
This whole thing to me is just the same propaganda. For a second I actually believed this had anything to do with what the woman at that meeting said. It's clear now that it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty obvious you are taking your pre-conceived notions about women and feminism and using this event as a tool to rant about it without appearing sexist. The feminist of the 70's were NOT misandrist, that is a goddamn lie. So is the lie that this is what women think or what "feminists" think about the word female. The very word feminist has the word female in it, do you really think this is a reflection of what they think? You are making the fatal flaw of taking something ONE woman says and applying it all over the board, it's called tokenism, and it is pretty sexist.
Now that I managed to force myself through this entire blog I can honestly say that so much of this was twisted to suit a particular agenda that it's not even worth reading. You left out the part about most women not agreeing that female was offensive, maybe she just thinks it is, or doesn't want to be characterized as a "female" atheist and rather just an atheist?