Social graces, who needs em?

Russell here. I haven't really thrown myself fully into the Watson / Dawkins dust up, apart from a Facebook thread and a few choice remarks in comments. Rest assured, though, that I and pretty much every Atheist Experience participant I've seen in email agrees (as far as I can glean) with the main thrust of Martin's post on the subject, to wit: "Dawkins is wrong, Rebecca is right." We've gotten email trying to insist that we should inject some fake balance into this discussion, saying both sides have blown it out of proportion. Nope. IMHO, they haven't, all the proportion blowing out of has been in one direction.

A thread that is pushing towards 400 comments probably doesn't need more people repeating what's already been said, but I want to take some time out to address one of the most... confused... comments that I saw thrown out and repeated a few times in there. It's this:

This is embarrassing. I feel the need to comment on this because Martin, Tracy, and Matt are clearly being hypocrites here.

"Lets make a TV show where we call all religion false. People will feel offended/threatened/fearful for viewer's salvation, but in the name of free discussion, its worth it. After all, people don't have right not to be offended."

And now look whats happened. "Its good for Rebecca to set incredibly subjective social rules for all men (applying to all women as well) because she might be frightened."

Of course people don't have the right not to be offended.

And by the same token, people don't have the automatic right of association with people that they've offended.

Look, I don't spend time talking about atheism because I think it's naturally fun to offend people. I talk about atheism because I feel that it's an intelligent point of view which has been unfairly misrepresented by a large number of religious people. When I'm on the show I have different goals depending on who I'm talking to. The three most common goals, for me, are as follows:

1. Hello, fellow atheist! Don't feel bad that you're an atheist, because many other smart people agree with you and have good reasons for doing so! We support you and appreciate what you're going through.
   
2. Hello, theist! We may disagree with you, but we're not a danger to you. We have values, we don't harm people, and we aren't on a mission to destroy your freedom to believe what you want. We think your beliefs are wrong, but we'd like to discuss why rather than drawing the knives. Yay for pluralism, am I right?
3. Hey, audience! Get a load of this guy! His religion has caused him to have an extraordinary number of obviously false beliefs, so hilarious that they are transparent even to his fellow religious people! Let's all enjoy him for entertainment value, since it would obviously be a waste of time to try to convince him of anything.

That's the formula in a nutshell, and all three types of caller are valued. Caller #3 is the most likely to be "offended" by our topics, but that's okay with me. He is free not to watch, and if he watches anyway, well, offense is part of the package deal.

But I also don't expect to hang out with those people. I usually don't come into their church, tell them things from their pulpit that will offend them, and then get angry because they don't immediately hire me as the new pastor.

So the question is: do we, in fact, give a crap about having women like Rebecca and Tracie and and Greta and Jen Peeples and Jen McCreight feel comfortable as a part of the atheist activist and outreach community, or don't we? If several of our existing activists explain what it is that is making atheist conventions a potentially uncomfortable environment, are you gonna say "Suck it up, babe, I have the right to offend you"?

Well, yeah, you have the right to do it. But you're kind of like a guy who is sitting in a public place for hours making armpit fart noises. It's not illegal to make armpit farts, it's probably not "threatening behavior" per se, but you can rest assured that the vast majority of people will find you annoying and stay far away from you. Some might even approach you and say "Please stop doing that, it's obnoxious." As Richard Dawkins might point out, the amount of discomfort it causes people is quite trivial compared to what oppressed women in the Middle East have to go through, but it doesn't change the fact that it will cause a lot of people not to like you.

So if I say "Please stop with the armpit farts," I am not curtailing your free speech. And if you insist on your "right" to do it, and then as a result I choose to avoid you, I am also not curtailing your free speech. And if I later throw a party, and I say "Don't invite him, that's the armpit fart guy," I am still not curtailing your free speech. I'm just exercising my freedom of association because I don't like you.

Sometimes in the past I've talked about debating atheism as being a kind of competitive game, much like chess or poker or Starcraft II or football. In all competitive games, there is a certain amount of luck involved with the circumstances under which you play, but the main way to increase your skill is to play a lot. When you lose, you observe what your opponent did and see if there is anything you can specifically borrow from his style so that you improve the next time. When you win, identify why you won and keep doing that, but also review where you were weakest and how you can stop doing those things.

Being socially effective and well liked is no different, but this is a difficult thing for some atheists to get their heads around because a lot of us are -- show of hands, please! -- nerds. It's not a coincidence that there are strong nerdy tendencies among a group that emphasizes intellect, rationality, and scientific literacy. It comes with the territory. I'm a nerd, I'm engaged to a nerd, I love talking to nerds.

But one thing that characterizes some nerds is that they care more about their chosen area of passion -- whether it's physics or Greek poetry or getting really good at Starcraft II -- than about their personal interactions with other people. And that, of course, leads to frustration when they recognize that social acceptance doesn't come for free; you have to work at that too.

Let me throw out a chess analogy here. I prefer to use chess rather than other games because I feel most people (particularly nerds) are likely to have at least a little bit of familiarity with it. At all skill levels, most players start the game by moving the king's pawn. A smaller number move the queen's pawn first, often as part of a queen's gambit. It's also possible to open with any other pawn or even a knight, but it's very rare for good players to do this for a lot of reasons: you give up early control of the center, you delay your ability to move out key pieces on the board, etc.

Now suppose you're just learning to play chess, and you decide that you want to open every game by moving your rook's pawn, way over on the side of the board. After I watch your games a bit, I say "I think you should stop using that as your opening move, try something more traditional." A player who wishes to improve at chess will seriously consider this suggestion and most will eventually recognize it as correct. This improvement comes in two stages: first understanding the reasoning behind the strategy, and second, trying it out and observing that, yes, you win more when you do it.

But another reaction to this advice would be to throw a temper tantrum, saying "What an unfair demand! That's the problem with this dumb game, it's so rigid and has all these unspoken 'rules' that I'm expected to follow even though they aren't part of the official rules of the game! I think you're just imposing on my freedom to open with the rook's pawn, and you can go fuck yourself."

That player is always going to be bad at chess. He's right, of course, to think that you "have the right" to make a rook pawn opening. But what he's missing is that you don't have the right to open with the rook's pawn and then win the game. Being good at chess is not a right.

Forgive the incredibly convoluted analogy, but I do have a point. There is a way of acting which will be regarded as offensive and out of line by most people who give any actual thought to the matter. People who insist on their "right" to act this way do not have the right to be respected or appreciated for their independence, which would constitute "winning" the social game.

Periodically we'll see discussions going on about why there are so many white dudes in the atheist activist movement. Atheist men would like to have more women around. Atheist women, minority that they are, would like to have more women around. Black atheists, and non-racist white atheists, would like to have more black atheists around. We don't want that so that we white men can have more chicks to hit on, or so we can smugly say "I have some black friends!" It's because we would like atheist activism to be an open and inviting community for all people of like minds to be comfortable congregating and exchanging ideas. We don't want to be forever hiding our atheism because Christians are the only ones who know how to apply social pressure.

Because, see, Rebecca Watson does not presume speak for all women; but if you look around at the reaction to her story among female bloggers, you'll see that she obviously speaks effectively for a lot of them. The atheist community is either going to be a place that welcomes and embraces guys being obnoxious douches for the sake of celebrating their freedom to do what they want... or it's going to be a place where women like to be. It can't be both. You can offend people if you want, but you can't be aggressively, unapologetically offensive to people whom you then also hope will like you.

Those are the rules of the game. Sorry if it cramps your style. Learn to play or go find a different game that you're better at.

Oh hell, is Elevatorgate going to ruin TAM9?

"What do women want?" Sigmund Freud once famously asked. Aretha Franklin answered him just as famously: "R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to me!"

If you haven't been keeping up with the current online eruption surrounding Elevatorgate — and I suspect most of you have at least heard about it, as Skepchick and Pharyngula are just slightly more widely read than our little blog — I will just direct you to those sites for the full-immersion experience. But to recap, here are the main bullet points...

Rebecca Watson of Skepchick fame attends a conference overseas. Gets hit on by clueless doof in the hotel elevator at 4 AM, brushes him off. Mentions the incident in her talk, as well as online, saying, in effect, "Hey guys, don't do stuff like that, thanks."

This being the Internet, the situation Escalates into full-on web drama. Loser guys with same sense of clueless entitlement blow Rebecca's reaction all out of proportion, make her out to be stick-up-the-ass prude who pilloried some poor Nice Guy for the ghastly crime of asking her for coffee. Larger group of Rebecca defenders jump in, including PZ, Jen at Blag Hag, and many others, chiding the guys for not getting it and pointing to a very real problem of acculturated sexism that infects the skeptical/atheist community just as it does the wide world.

Then, out of the blue, Rebecca gets a "Methinks the lady doth protest too much" note from no less a luminary than Richard Dawkins, the boneheadedness of which stupefies everyone (except, of course, the clueless doof brigade). Short version: in a world in which women are undergoing such horrors as genital mutilation and death by stoning, any chick who has nothing more to complain about than an unwelcome pass in an elevator is clearly a petulant whiner. Seriously.

Understandably incensed — I mean, way to miss the point, Prof! — Rebecca publicly chastises and disowns Dawkins. And now, it appears the godless Internet is splitting into Team Rebecca and Team Richard camps.

From such pebbles do avalanches begin.

I will make my position so clear even a gerbil with dyslexia should be able to get it, because this is the Internet, and it appears one's words can be wildly misunderstood and misrepresented here. (Who knew?) In six words: Dawkins is wrong, Rebecca is right. Dawkins' point — which is fundamentally no different than telling atheists that in a world where the godless are burned at the stake, we're being kind of petty to complain about "little" things like God in the Pledge or creationism in the classroom — is simply wrong. He's as wrong as a wrong thing with the word wrong written on it by someone who can't spell.

Now, TAM9 is coming up, and I am concerned that the backwash from all this is going to cast an ugly pall over a convention that ought to be the community's annual high point. It isn't that Rebecca and her supporters (hello, I am one) aren't justified in their anger. They are. But...

The whole "throwing Dawkins under the bus" thing is, I think, unproductive. We are rationalists. We pride ourselves on our capacity for reason, which we boast of having more of than anyone else. So what do we do about this? Do we employ our reason, and turn this event into the teachable moment it needs to be? After all, Dawkins wrote TGD, in his words, in the interest of "raising consciousness." Clearly, acculturated sexism is a matter about which Dawkins desperately needs his consciousness raised. Will we give him the chance to do this? After all, the man's achievements over the last decade in the service of promoting atheism and reason — culminating in both topics today being suitable for bestselling books, rather than shameful topics you just cannot mention in polite society — are considerable, and the debt atheists worldwide owe him is incalculable. I am simply acknowledging a fact, not putting the man on a pedestal or anything. He's done a lot, and that deserves recognition.

So how do we pay him back for this? Do we say, "You helped us gain stature and credibility. Now you apparently need our help, getting over some ideas of privilege you seem to have a problem with. Here. This is why you are wrong. Please think about these things and man up to your mistake." This, is seems to me, is the path of rationality.

Or, do we abandon rationality, give ourselves over to emotion, anger and ego, and circle the wagons around the sense of righteousness gained from believing that we've taken the right side of a split? (Note: I do not accuse Rebecca of this, as she's responding to a personal insult and has every right to respond as she chooses. But I think such a thing would be the case if skeptics en masse did so.) I can think of nothing that would disappoint me more than to witness the drama of a mass walkout of Dawkins' speech at TAM. I would understand it, but I'd wish a path had been taken towards allowing this conflict to be something the godless community saw as an opportunity for education and problem solving, rather than digging in trenches.

Attitudes of sexism and male entitlement do exist among those of us who consider ourselves rationalists. You should see some of the fratboy bullshit that pops up in the chat room when either Jen or Tracie are on the show. It's like, WTF? Who are you people?

I know that I myself had to unlearn a lot of my own acculturation, and I am equally sure I'd get a "Needs Improvement" grade on my efforts even today. But I know that when I was younger, less secure and a bit more arrogant, I reacted poorly to rejection in ways that I can only now, years later, understand were wrong and, yeah, pretty damned creepy. I had to outgrow feeling sexually entitled, just like I had to outgrow homophobia. My perceived loneliness and need to dip my wick was not, I had to learn, any woman's problem to solve. There is so much about my 20-24 year old self that embarrasses me to remember.

But I learned, and am still learning, and I want those who still need to learn — even if they are 70-year-old celebrity scientists — to be able to do so. It's harder to change your attitudes as you get older, as you get set in your ways. But I think it can still be done.

For the most part, I do see an effort to correct and educate Dawkins has been made. Dawkins has asked to be led to understanding of where he is wrong, even if, as far as I could tell, he may still not yet get it.

What I want to happen out of this is consciousness-raising. Will TAM9 be the event that helps that occur, or that divides us further? I guess we will see.

Presenting the most offensive email we've ever gotten

And it's not even Christian hate mail. Hell, that stuff's almost always penny ante.

No, this is someone who claims to be a fan, but who has his head...well, let's just say that the attitudes expressed here reflect a level of clueless douchebaggery and stupidity that I've rarely seen. I suppose this way of thinking might fly in the Christian Quiverfull community, or among 13-year-old boys who've learned everything they think they know about females from torrenting Girls Gone Wild videos. But to hear it coming from an (choke) admirer of ours is creepy to say the very least. One gets the impression he's the sort of fellow who wonders why women only want to go out with "jerks" and not "nice guys" like him.

Why post it here? Simply because I think this is the sort of thing that deserves public shaming. Rock-stupid condescension and male-entitlement attitudes like this continue to thrive when those who express them are brushed off with a "boys will be boys" dismissal, rather than being subjected to the castigation they deserve. So, castigate away.

Subject: message for jen peeps

hi,

I think you're great, and your current look is excellent suits you very well.

I am only saying the following advice because you're good and thus deserving of my advise

You look hot here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7w7hOv47Y4
this seems to be your current look

Long hair is very important.

It's a minority that look reasonably good with short hair, and even those that do, would almost always look better with long hair.

You look bad with short hair.. As in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsaOL85jx9Q
It might be better if I don't elaborate on that or get too blunt, because women can burst into tears over that kind of thing.. and you're nice I don't want you to burst into tears or even to get upset. And there's no reason to, this is a very positive message that you look hot -now-. and that it's so easy for you just don't cut your hair short. And since you're so logical, I know you will take this message as a positive thing since it should be, and it's not spun either.

A secondary issue, is your clothing in that older video is frumpy rather than modern-sexy.. women usually look sexier in a t-shirt than in frumpy clothing, and you are no exception. I know you're not trying to look sexy even when you do.. but no point dressing in a frumpy way. Really since i'm a guy I don't care about type of clothes.. but as a woman you're familiar with clothes and you'd understand if I said your clothing there was frumpy.. and it was. The recent video where you wore the t-shirt is better than the frumpy clothes.. though you'd look hot either way.. since as I said clothing was secondary. From a guy's perspective, something less frumpy might not hide you as much. I hope you get a nice partner, like Russel , a particular hero of mine, and have lots of intelligent logical discussion and kids like you two! or like almost any on AE, at least 5 or 6 of you are incredible and really leading atheist thinkers.

In 15 years you'll look quite bad.. and after that you'll look as disgusting to a man(A man with standards) as any other very middle aged woman is just expired and at different stages part their expiration date. So look good and sexy and enjoy the experience while you can. And be glad that you can..

I am very happy that you are hot, because you deserve to be!