Wednesday’s post

What are some old fashioned values that are used to perpetuate and reinforce bigotry? What are some old fashioned values that are worth keeping?

A lot of these might seem really obvious, but in my experience these red flags are sometimes missed because when we’re looking for romance or sex online we’re often trying to see the best in people because we know that expressing yourself through a profile can be hard. It’s also true that many of these don’t necessarily mean the guy is a creep, but it’s a good idea to proceed with caution when things like this crop up.

Let the screen shot parade begin!

What this guy is saying here is: “I really hate it when chicks are super picky and only date dudes they find attractive and appealing. Also, your job is a boner-killer.” It’s also quite possible that when he says he wants someone who brings out the “bad boy” side of a man he’s interested in freaky sex with questionable consent. Or he really, really wants to cuddle while watching Will Smith and Martin Lawrence together.

Quality real estate ladies!  This particular guy hasn’t been contacted on the site in almost a week, so it doesn’t seem like he has many passionate and ambitious beauties asking for his really warm gifts. This reads like a Nice Guy trying to act like a confident person, i.e. a jerk, because he thinks that’s what women want.

I happen to have gone on some dates with women who are younger than I am. Dating people who are younger (or older) than you isn’t a sign of misogyny in itself. What is a huge warning sign is a dude who makes a big point about wanting someone who is much younger than he is. This guy wants to make sure that all those beautiful, tawny young women aren’t afraid that a sophisticated older man is afraid to be their mentor. That kind of creepfest and the dudes who are, say, 49 years old and list the women they’re interested in as being aged 18-48 are telling us that they are intimidated by a woman they would consider a peer and they feel more comfortable dating younger hotties that they have objectified to the point that they can’t imagine them as people with opinions and feelings and self esteem that would make them uncomfortable. It’s also very possible that these men are resentful for missing out on all the crazy sex with co-eds they imaging they missed out on in high school and college and they feel like they’re entitled to get to screw those young women now.

Misogynists like to ramble. They think they’re the smartest, funniest, and most clever people around. They also think that it’s super relevant that their ex girlfriend was a castrating bitch and that they hate sharing. Also, what’s with the incoherent rant about truth and drugs (I think?) at the end. Is he warning us that he lies to us for our own good?

One of the things I love about OkCupid is the ability to see how people have answered the match questions. I don’t communicate with women who believe that the earth is larger than the sun or that creationism should be taught in schools. Here we have a biblical literalist. I have yet to meet a biblical literalist who doesn’t hate women.

Rushing in to a relationship is a textbook red flag for abusive relationships. Pressure for commitment (moving in, engagement, marriage, children) early on in a relationship is basically the norm for an abuser. Perhaps it’s not the case for this guy, but it’s definitely something to watch out for. And trust me, marrying someone you haven’t slept with is rushing it and is stupid even if you don’t marry an abuser.

I’m sure you all get this one, right? Slut shaming and dictating a woman’s behavior as your number one priority while introducing yourself is something that sexist shitlords do. Don’t date this guy, he is horrible.

Racism and misogyny often walk hand in hand, and even if this guy isn’t a misogynist, just think what other horrible personality defects he has to go with his racism.

I’m an insecure and jealous assbag! No pressure! I think we all know he will look at other women, but he wants a woman who never looks at another man. Misogynists often fail to realize that women have sex drives just like men do.

Racism and misogyny are frequent companions but homophobia and misogyny are life partners. Homophobia always comes with a base layer of misogyny. Men who hate men who suck dick never have high opinions of the women they want to have sucking theirs.

So, there are the first ten warning signs I found cruising around OkCupid. Have you found any choice examples of your own?

What causes do and don’t get funded?  Well, it isn’t always as impartial as you’d hope.  Helping men past their prime get it up obviously isn’t a very pressing concern, but the prevalence of 80 year olds with limp dicks and disposable income prompted the creation of Viagra over treatments for say… for Sickle Cell Anemia, which is actually life threatening (unlike erectile dysfunction) but tends to effect minority populations disproportionately.

Despite the fact that good science has to try to be blind to bias in the pursuit of its goals, what science is and isn’t done and which populations benefit accordingly is awfully culturally determined.  Privilege plays a large, somewhat indirect role here, and it’s also why some marginalized groups have a problematic relationship with science.  There are even those within the Post-Modern movement who have gone so far as to call science a white man’s game.

While I disagree that the epistemology (justifications for knowledge) of science is gendered or racially biased, it’s easy to see how some could reach that conclusion.  Science legitimately does know better than local traditions and folk remedies most of the time, but to some Deconstructionists that’s not only a questionable claim but also an attitude that reflects cultural imperialism, aggression, and ethnocentrism.  And it’s easy to understand their compassion for marginalized groups and to question the morality of holding scientific ideas over the cherished notions of foreign peoples.

At the same time however, the thought of denying scientific fact in favor of local customs when actual harm is being done is simply not something we can abide.  For example, the river Ganges in India is thought to be holy by the Hindu religion and many in the region believe that it has healing properties as a result.  In reality, it’s quite literally full of shit.  The level of fecal contamination in the Ganges makes sending your sick Grandma into the water for a quick dip more than a little bit problematic.  I think we have a responsibility to inform while remaining sensitive to their relatively unprivileged position however, so I’d refrain from describing the Ganges as a “shit-infested cesspool of faux-holiness.”

Such logic extends well beyond scientific topics and into the work of Skepticism.  When we interact with true believers, we have a responsibility to be compassionate and considerate as well.  We need to realize that our skeptical values are the result of fortunate circumstances, and not everyone has access to the same information and experiences that we do.  If you think about it, the phrase “there are no atheists in fox holes” is a damn good argument for Atheism as a privileged position, and serves as another example of the ways in which secularists have moral responsibility to believers.  For instance, I’m not going to tell a 90 year old woman on her deathbed that the existence of god is about as statistically likely as Zombie Abe Lincoln rising from the cold, death earth to piss on John Wilkes Boothe’s grave.

The bottom line is, scientific knowledge and thinking come loaded with awesome responsibility.  Critical thinking can serve as a weapon to staunchly defend prior notions in the hands of the intellectually disingenuous.  It can also be a source of arrogant superiority if you let it.  Smart people are good at rationalizing stupid things, and that’s why Skeptics have to be doubly sure that they’re living up to the standard they’ve set for themselves while still being good people.

Reason isn’t enough, you need compassion too.

Who are your progressive male role models? Who has inspired you to be a better person? What particular lessons have you taken from them?

There was a time in my early adulthood when I rode around in my friends car listening to two tapes we had. The Beastie Boys’ License to Ill and NWA’s Niggaz4Life. Both albums were, at the very least, problematic in their lyrics about women and sexual minorities. As a dumb, straight, white guy I didn’t really notice it, and if anyone pointed it out I could (and would) dismiss it by saying “It’s just a joke” or “Come on, lighten up” or by talking about free speech. I still meet countless men and boys who have that same attitude.

But here’s what happened: The Beastie Boys changed. They realized that while they were parodying a frat boy mentality on their first album, those words still hurt and those “jokes” weren’t obviously jokes to many people. In 1986 the Beasties had these lyrics: “Girls, to do the dishes…to clean up my room…to do the laundry…and in the bathroom…. That’s all I really want is girls. Two at a time, I want girls.” Then in 1994 MCA had these rhymes: “I want to say a little something that’s long overdue. The disrespect to women has got to be through. To all the mothers and the sisters and the wives and friends, I want to offer my love and respect to the end.” Those are just two examples from scores I could use.

Not only did their lyrics change and did they become better people, giving to their community and the world at large, but they acknowledged where they had fucked up in the past and made efforts to apologize and educate. That was huge for me. Adam Yauch and the other Beastie Boys taught me that just because I was an ignorant asshole while I was young, just because I think I’m smarter than most everyone else, I can still learn. It’s not only possible, but it’s pretty  awesome to change your opinions on things as you learn about the world. When you do change your opinions you also don’t have to hide the fact that you made mistakes. In fact, being open about your evolution and growth as a human being is admirable and inspiring.

I’m an atheist, so there’s no resting in peace for Adam Yauch. We’ve lost him, but we have his legacy. I’m a part of that legacy, and in a very real way I’m working to continue it. He made the world a better place while he was here and he made me a better person.

- Sasha

Some of you may have seen or at least heard about the recent CNN prime time special, Betrayal of Trust?, about the recent rape scandal in the US Military Academy. The specifics of the allegations set forth by these two former cadets and the current lawsuit will not be the main topic of this article. What concerns me is the Corps’ reaction to the whole situation. I can count the number of people I’ve talked to who aren’t victim-blaming on one hand. One of them isn’t a cadet.

This is what I hear:

“She should have known better.”

Should she have? How? This argument is based off her plebe (freshman) status at the time. The alleged rapist was a firstie (senior). The idea is that because the firstie male was asking her to his room to drink, she should automatically assume that he intends to get her in bed, and that her foot inside the door implies consent to sex.

First, this is insulting to men everywhere; as if we are incapable of anything but lust. Second, why is it her responsibility to divine his intent? She’s suddenly supposed to be able to read minds? Is it her job to never ever enter a man’s room without planning to get naked? Or should she actively mistrust every male — 85% of the students at the Academy?

“I knew her/was in her company; the alleged rapist is my buddy.”

This is brought into the discussion as if it somehow makes their opinions all the more valid. Unless they were in the room at the time, they have no more inside information on the situation than say, the old lady who lives down the street from me.

“She’s a slut!”

A woman’s ability to enjoy sex does not make her less believable when accusing someone of rape, nor does it make her a “slut.” I don’t care if she’d slept with thirty upperclassmen before this one incident. The bottom line is that she did not want to sleep with this one and he forced himself on her.

What really gets me about the people here is that a large portion of the arguments against the victim I hear aren’t even to say that she wasn’t raped. They are trying to say that it is somehow her fault. The rape culture here at West Point and in the military is not being addressed properly. Sure we have SHARP training (Sexual Harassment and Rape Prevention), but this does little to change the perspective of the ranks. Even if the various PowerPoint slides, lectures, and video presentations adequately addressed the issue, it would do little as SHARP training is viewed as just another mandatory duty to get out of the way. It is taken seriously by very few, and those who do see it as they should are not the ones who need the training.

I think the Army is starting to move in the right direction with how it treats these cases but it still has yet to address the issue. We need to concentrate more on keeping those 19,000 cases from happening in the first place, and that starts at the level of junior leaders. Until the culture here at the academies is changed, all we are doing is pumping more of these people into the ranks of our officers.

These issues are not exclusive to the academies or even the military, but as members of the armed forces we claim a moral ground above and beyond what the normal citizenry claims. It’s about time we started acting like it.

- Windows.

Then someone replied that they’d like to see the video about things men actually say to men who say shit to women on the street. They had a real point. There’s a lot of silence from men and women both in response to street harassment. There’s a lot of silence about inappropriate behavior in public in general.

When you have seen street harassment or inappropriate behavior directed at women or minorities, have you said something? Tell us what you said. Have you ever been silent even though you disapproved? Why do we so often hold our tongues in public? How can we change things so that we speak out againts offensive and bullying behavior?

So, the Blunt Amendment (full text here) was voted down two weeks ago.  The Blunt Amendment, for those not in the know, would have altered the requirements placed on employers that provide health insurance to their employees so that they would not be required to have insurance coverage that provided services that the employer or the insurance company finds morally objectionable.  As spelled out in the amendment itself:

FOR HEALTH PLANS.—A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) (or preventive health services described in section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act), to fail to be a qualified health plan, or to fail to fulfill any other requirement under this title on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because— (i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or (ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.

Now, the sponsors and supporters of this amendment claim that this wasn’t about contraception coverage.  However, the entire mess was spurred by the president requiring contraception to be covered by all employee-offered insurance plans, a rule with which the Catholic Church (which objects to contraception due to some rather dubious readings of the Bible) did not want to comply.  The discussion on the floor kept delving into discussions of contraceptive coverage while the representatives kept insisting that this isn’t what it was actually about.  The amendment got the support of evangelical churches that have for the last few years been opposed to contraceptives because…well, on some ill-defined alleged principle that seems to shift with the days.  So, um, yeah, this was about contraceptives.  This time around, but it is part of a larger issue, which I will get to shortly.

Still, regardless of what spurred it, this sounds reasonable on the surface.  If you run an insurance company, or you are an employer who offers insurance, shouldn’t you be allowed to only offer those things that comport with your religious or moral views?  The Blunt Amendment is part of an on-going debate in the country regarding the “right to conscience” of individuals and organizations – that is, the ability for individuals and organizations to not provide products and services that are within their job description, but which they find morally repugnant.

Not requiring people to do things that they find morally repugnant or religiously offensive is, even I will admit, a good principle.  The problem is, that like every good principle, it is a stark black-and-white concept that, unfortunately, has to be applied to the very “shades of grey” real world.

Let’s continue to use the Blunt Amendment as an example.  The amendment failed (though a similar bill is alive and well in the Arizona legislature, and I suspect we’ll see it crop up in other state legislatures as well), but it’s not the first time that such a things has risen, nor will it be the last, and it is pretty standard as these sorts of things go, so, failed or not, it’s a good one to examine.  As worded, the law allows employers or insurers to deny coverage for any service or product that is found to be religiously offensive or morally wrong.  This means that Catholic-owned businesses and institutions would not be required to cover contraceptives.  However, it also means that:

- Jehovah’s Witness run organizations and businesses could decline to cover any medical procedure that involves a blood transfusion, even if the transfusion is absolutely necessary to keep someone alive.

- It means that ultra-orthodox Jewish and Muslim owned businesses and institutions can refuse to cover any medical procedure in which a person might be seen by a physician, nurse, or technician of the opposite sex.

- It means that employers who are white supremacists can refuse to cover procedures that they believe will somehow taint the “racial purity” of a person (this can include any number of things, from blood transfusions to organ transplants, to not allowing patients to be seen by medical professionals of other ethnicities).

- It means that employers who believe that sexually transmitted diseases are God’s punishment for immoral behavior can refuse to cover the costs of treatment of these diseases (and, likely, based on the rhetoric often employed by such people, this would include those who were infected by rape or by an unfaithful spouse).

- It means that a New-Agey sort of employer can refuse coverage for all standard medical treatment because they object to the nature of the medical industry, requiring their employees to go to exotic and useless snake oil salesmen.

…and the list goes on.  Moreover, this provides a neat loophole for an employer who doesn’t want to offer any coverage – if they can concoct a reason why they find medical coverage morally unacceptable, then they can simply not offer it.  This may or may not stand up in court, but if the amendment had passed it would only be a matter of time before someone tried this.

Now, you may be saying “oh, Come on, Armstrong, those aren’t going to happen, you’re blowing this out of proportion.”  Follow the link above and read the entire amendment.  You see the parts where there is clear language protecting the rights of employees or ensuring that the amendment won’t be taken to lunatic extremes?  No?  Yeah, that’s because those parts of the amendment don’t fucking exist.  To be certain, there are other laws that would articulate on these issues, and those might hold sway in court, but it seems absurd to create a situation in which you would have to end up in court just to find out what the limits of an overly-expansive measure are.

That’s not to say that the people who wrote, sponsored, and voted for this amendment wouldn’t agree that it would be absurd to prohibit someone from seeing a doctor of the opposite sex, getting a blood transfusion, or being able to see a real doctor and not some pyramid-power card reader.  In fact, they would probably be outraged if they heard that a Jehovah’s Witness who owned a contracting business was unwilling to allow insurance coverage for emergency blood transfusions for their employees. But, outraged or not, these politicians and the voters who support them would have created the situation in which that was guaranteed to occur.  Why?  Because these people fail to grasp the clear and logical consequences of their actions (well, at least the voters fail to, I’m rather more cynical regarding the politicians who I think are just pandering for votes, consequences be damned).

Although the medical examples have been getting alot of attention lately (specifically focused on contraception and abortion), there is a definite move to get “conscience clauses” applied to a wide range of fields.

Here’s the thing: do you believe that Jehovah’s Witness employers should be allowed to deny insurance coverage for emergency transfusions?  Do you think that a district attorney should be allowed to not prosecute a homicide suspect because the victim was gay and the attorney’s religion is anti-gay?  Do you think that a firefighter should be allowed to not put out a fire at a church because the firefighter honestly believes that religion is evil and should be stomped out?  Do you think that a doctor should be allowed to hide from a patient that she has an ectopic pregnancy (a type of pregnancy that typically can not come to term, and often kills the mother) because the doctor’s religion is opposed to abortion even in cases where BOTH the mother and child WILL die if the pregnancy is not aborted (bills supporting this are in many state legislatures, and passed in Arizona)?  Do you think that a Justice of the Peace (which is a County employee and not a member of the clergy) should be allowed to refuse to marry an inter-racial couple because they have a moral objection to miscegenation?  Do you think that the possible situations I list above should all be allowed? If the answer to any one of these questions is “no”, then you don’t actually believe in the “conscience clauses” as they currently exist, regardless of what you might say.

In fact, if you answered “no” to any of those questions, then you believe, like I do, that people should not be required to do things against their religious or moral stances whenever possible.  That last part, the “whenever possible” is important, because it acknowledges that we live in a world where stark black-and-white stances almost always crack before reality, and where we have to use such views as guides to navigate the world around us without ever loosing site of the fact that strict adherence in all cases is impossible.

This is an important acknowledgement because it allows us to start actually solving problems, rather than just making them worse by bowing to the stupid demands of deranged extremists.  It allows us to see that the real question is not “should people be required to do things that go against their moral or religious positions” and instead lets us address the REAL question: When and under what circumstances should people be required to do things that go against their moral or religious positions?  Under what circumstances does one’s responsibility to others outweigh one’s own views?  Anyone with one ounce of sense realizes that we are social animals, and that there will be times when our responsibility to those around us will have to outweigh our own desires, interests, and views regarding morality and religion.

When looked at this way, most of us would probably agree that a Jehovah’s Witness’s desire to not perform a blood transfusion is trumped by his responsibilities as an emergency room surgeon.  We would recognize that a white supremacist’s desire to let an African-American man be beaten is trumped by his responsibilities as a police officer.  We would recognize that a Christian Scientist’s religious views regarding disease are trumped by his responsibilities as an insurance provider to provide adequate coverage to the people enrolled in his programs.  If your religious views prevent you from being able to faithfully execute the job, then perhaps you should not go into that line of work.

The question, rather than being a broad one that will be designed to avoid contentious issues (while allowing the sorts of scenarios described above), allowing politicians to push agendas that most of us actually wouldn’t like, would get specific.  We would still have contention and argument over contraceptives and abortion, but at least then the people trying to make policy would have to honestly argue for their positions on the merit of those positions, and not make dishonest but broad claims about how this isn’t an issue regarding the matter at hand, but is about some vaguely defined thing designed to get people to shut off their critical faculties.

We may also find that these issues become more complex, because reality is complex.  It’s one thing for a pharmacist in downtown Los Angeles to refuse to fill out a prescription for contraceptives – it’s downtown Los Angeles, there are plenty of pharmacists in easy reach.  The only pharmacist in a rural county in Florida, though?  Does that pharmacist get the same consideration, or do local conditions require different rules?  It’s a tough question without an easy answer, but it’s the sort of question that we have to face when we look at these sorts of issues honestly.

The people pushing the “conscience clauses” don’t even believe in them.  They believe that their beliefs (usually evangelical Christian or Catholic) should be respected, that they should not be required to do things that they dislike.  However, if you bother to listen to them, they make it clear that, even though the policies they favor would render it so, the same should not be extended to Muslims, atheists, Hindus, Christian Scientists, New Age believers, etc.  So, let’s call them on their bullshit.  The first step is to not fall for their bullshit, but to see it for what it is.  The second step is to pick up the more specific, but very real, question of what we should be able to require of people with respect to a particular issue.  The question isn’t whether or not people should ever be required to act against their beliefs, it’s when and under what circumstances should we expect them to be required to.  Every one of us actually agrees that these circumstances exist, whether we will admit to it or not.

Imagine you’re a 20 year old who is passionately invested in skepticism.  You really want to meet others who feel the same way you do and have enlightening conversations with them!  You go online and do a quick look-up of skeptical events held in your area.  “Oh hey, Skeptics in the Pub!” you exclaim to yourself.  Then it hits you: in the pub… You’re not 21.  “Well fuuuck.”

Young people aren’t the only ones pushed to the side here either.  Some people don’t feel comfortable in bars.  There are a multitude of potential reasons for wanting to avoid this kind of environment.  Whether you’re a woman who doesn’t like being harassed by drunk men or a recovering alcoholic, you should be able to find a skeptical event to attend that doesn’t involve alcohol.

I also wonder if men wouldn’t behave better towards female attendees as a whole if alcohol wasn’t a central component of many skeptical meetups.  Obviously drunkenness doesn’t excuse poor behavior even if it contributes to it, but it’s a thought none the less.

2)  More Anti-Harassment Policies

As More Than Men previously covered, The Amazing Meeting’s anti-harassment policy has resulted in some controversy.  A couple of people have even threatened to boycott the event.  It’s incredibly depressing that we’re part of a community where people think being told not to harass other people is somehow unreasonable and cause for threats of non-participation.  There’s a damn good way to change this though:  make anti-harassment policies universally prevalent in our movement.

We should double down rather than back away.  Getting this done would be as easy as passing around a petition and handing it off to the leaders of every skeptical organization out there big and small.  When this becomes the norm, we’ll be much healthier as a movement.  Men attending skeptical events aren’t being told not to express their interest in fellow attendees in a conscientious manner, all that’s being said by these policies is this:  creepiness can get right the fuck out.

3)  We Need More Prominent and Diverse Female Leaders

It’s great that a large number of high profile female skeptics are friends and co-activists like the folks at Skepchick, but there are plenty of great women out there doing their own thing who need recognition too.  Providing a vision of monolithic feminism, tight female activists, or anything else just makes it easier for the assholes to generalize and marginalize the role of women in Skepticism.

Have a woman blogger you know of who writes about scientific and skeptical concepts on her own?  Help promote her!  Pass around word of her involvement through social media.

There’s a danger to having all of the diversity in our movement clustered together in one place, we need more widespread variance.

In writing for this blog (and even before) I’ve seen my opinions dismissed by people who assumed I was a woman, then ignored when they realized I’m a man. I’ve gotten threats of rape from horrible people with poor reading comprehension. I’ve been the subject of elaborate conspiracy theories. I’ve gotten many kind words of support, but always from people who already agreed with me. I’ve gotten some great guest posts submitted, which I love and appreciate, but in nowhere near the numbers I had hoped for.

Between the abuse and the relative apathy and the feeling like the only people who listen already agreed or now hate me, I often find myself asking “Why the hell do I do this? Is this how I want to spend my free time?” I basically quit in my mind every 10 days or so. But I won’t let myself quit for good. I don’t want to surrender something that I think is important and valuable to people who are despicable and hateful.

I keep myself going in the hopes that, if nothing else, I can add a voice of support for the people who are the real targets of this campaign of bullying. If I can, some day, change one mind that would just be the cherry on top.

Anyway, just some thoughts and – more than anything – a reminder to myself why I do this even though some times, like now, I kind of want to just read a book and play with my cat.