From the outrage discussed on this blog post about SERAM by Sharon Moss and Lyz Liddell you would think that as FEMALES were walking in to SERAM, the males were telling them tits or get the fuck out. As a female, I feel incredibly pissed, offended, cheapened, and annoyed by reading this post. I was at the SERAM, and I can't remember feeling objectified or put down as a female at any point during the weekend. SERAM was an amazing event, and to me it seems as if Sharon and Liz made the unorganized, mendacity of a blog post to bitch for the sake of bitching.
You may not be aware, but I moved to Alabama from Michigan about a year and a half ago. In Michigan I was an atheist but never felt the need to join organized atheism because in Michigan beliefs were treated like penises, you can have one and be proud of it, but don't take it out in public, and don't shove it down peoples throats. As soon as I moved to Alabama I realized things were a bit different. Here everyone wants to show you their penis, and they want to know all about yours too. (metaphorically) This made me feel the need to join organized atheism. I found the NAFA group and after being scared to go to anything for about four months (I am really shy), I finally went. I bring all this up because I had read whiney bitch posts like the one above previously, and I thought that free thought groups were full of sexism and that guys were constantly slapping the girls asses or something. After attending a few events, I realized that NAFA wasn't sexist at all (well beyond sarcastic sexism).
Now the post made about SERAM makes me question every single other feminist whiny post I have read in regards to atheism. I missed the local panel (To quote a fellow atheist, I was practicing my god given right to sleep in on Sundays) but from what I heard from everyone I talked to, the lady who freaked out about being called a female totally overreacted. I heard this account from about a 50-50 spread of males and females, so I tend to think it is accurate. As for what was said about Sean Faircloth's talk, the account in the blog (which now happens to be cut out) was entirely inaccurate. The talk was about empowering women. It talked about how sex is a good thing, and how your only rule should be "consenting adults". The million dollar challenge was also not sexist. It showed how women, due to evolution, are the gatekeepers when it comes to sex. Evolutionarily it makes more sense for guys to have sex with as many females as possible, whereas a female will look for someone who is both sexually attractive and who seems like they would make a good partner in child rearing. I mean this is not necessarily how things work now, (there are plenty of guys out there who are in committed monogamous relationships, and many girls ((me)) who have no interest in having children ever) but overall it is still how things tend to happen. Sean was trying to point out that if a guy is determined to have sex with a random stranger by midnight, it probably won't happen, but if a girl wants to, she can probably make it happen. If anything, I think this is offensive to men, (apparently men can't control their dicks?) but some people feel like it was objectifying women because men might think about having sex with them. I am sure some guys did look around, pick a girl, and say, "I would try to sleep with that girl", but I can tell you that when Sean asked the same question of girls, I too looked around and picked at least three guys I think I would have been able to sleep with. Does this make me sexist? I HOPE SO!
Basically, the post about sexism at SERAM made it hard for me to even think straight. I really just wanted to post really obnoxious sexist comments to start a flame war because I was so full of anger. If you want to complain, get something fucking real to complain about. Shut the FUCK UP about your poor feminist morals being offended. If you want to get rid of sexism in atheism (though now I question on whether it is even there at all) start respecting yourself, and stop posting ignorant shit where you sound like a whiny 13 year old, then maybe people will treat you as an equal.
nicole.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hell yeah!
ReplyDelete1) I'm flattered my quote made it in here.
ReplyDelete2) was I one of the three guys?
lol Scott I can't remember specifics, but unless you were sitting near me, probably not. I really only looked within one or two rows of my seat.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this post, something tells me that this tweet from Jen McCreight is directed at you:
ReplyDelete"I also love the non-biologists arguing from evolutionary theory. Hey guys, evo biologist here. You don't know what you're talking about :D" (http://bit.ly/eSmW4F)
"Argument from authority," anyone? Isn't that one of the things that drives us crazy about religion?
Seeing this post confirms my initial impressions on JFFF (first comment signed as Jack but accidentally posted under "Anonymous") after reading both the post at JFFF (http://bit.ly/fpNb1t) and at Blag Hag: the JFFF post strikes me as the more reasonable interpretation of the episode than the Blag Hag post, as does this one. I thank you for the interesting read.
--Jack
P.S. - This part cracked me up: "in Michigan beliefs were treated like penises, you can have one and be proud of it, but don't take it out in public, and don't shove it down peoples throats." hahaha
wait. what do you have against me shoving my penis down people's throats?
ReplyDeleteReading Jen's blog the last month has made me feel like a sexist pig. Cause, you see, sometimes I think women are sexy. Sometimes I even want to have sex with women. And, if I see cleavage, I'll sneak a second peek. So, am I a total perv, or just normal?
ReplyDeletelol.. I love how she calls her self an evolutionary biologist (she is a graduate student, just as I am). Also calls me a non-biologist. wonderful. Whatever, not saying I know everything about evolution, but that argument is basically sound. Also it is completely normal to think that women are sexy and to want to have sex with them. I think men are sexy, and yes I think about sex, this is how things go.
ReplyDeleteAnd Wes I was using penis metaphorically. When used literally, no problem.. jk!
ReplyDelete** WARNING: This comment is not about sexism, but about evolution **
ReplyDelete"Evolutionarily it makes more sense for guys to have sex with as many females as possible"
No, it doesn't. Defenseless newborns with exhausted mothers are easy prey. Your genes won't be secured if all you do is fuck around. Fucking whatever is a good strategy only if you live commune style, like chimpanzees, or if the newborns are capable of survival on their own, like sharks. Then you have gibbons and parrots, which are predominantly monogamous. What makes more sense evolutionarily depends on the lifestyle of the species.
We don't know how early humans used to live, so I think it's a bit too speculative to make evolutionary explanations for current human behaviour. Traditionally, researchers have resorted to primitive societies as possible models for early humans' lifestyle. Most of those are polygamous, but this doesn't mean that the men go around fucking everything, but that couples break up if they feel like it, which simply means the concept of "divorce" is completely assumed and integrated in their lifestyle (I wish I could say the same about mine).
Beware of easy explanations. They are tempting because they sound convincing and elegant, but what a good explanation always relies upon is a truckload of ugly and complicated data.
@Luc Where is your truck load of ugly and complicated data? I have seen a truck load of ugly and complicated data that supports Nicole's "easy explanation". I have not however seen anything that supports yours. So if you could please point me in that direction, I would appreciate it! Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI have seen a truck load of ugly and complicated data that supports Nicole's "easy explanation"
ReplyDeleteWhere? Have Leakey, Gibbons, Lovejoy, Arsuaga or some other one of those guys who study early humans published a new paper with new data that settles the issue of how our ancestors used to live and I missed it?
I have not however seen anything that supports yours
I think you're referring to this: "What makes more sense evolutionarily depends on the lifestyle of the species." because all my comment boils down to that sentence. I gave specific, easily verifiable examples to illustrate that point. For parrots and gibbons it does not make more sense evolutionarily to have sex with as many females as possible, because their lifestyle favours another strategy. As far as I know (I'm waiting for Nicole's truck load) we don't know enough about early human lifestyles to assume a certain reproductive strategy over another.
I think you are sort of missing what I was saying. Basically a male will find a female, and they will mate. The female was specifically choosy in finding this male that will help her with the offspring once it is born because it would be harder to do alone. A female wants this sort of relationship because she invests much more energy in to an egg and also in to carrying the offspring than a male does to create sperm. A male may also want this because it makes it so he can ensure that his offspring survive. This doesn't mean that he also wouldn't want to go impregnante other females though. The cost of sperm is so minuscule, that overall, if you know that some of your offspring are surviving, just having some others that are much higher risk out there is an easy trade. The female also will have urges to have sex with others outside of the pairing. This is because having access to more genes is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying this is necessarily true for humans. (Although it seems like it would be), but it is true for other "monogamous" animals. Many animals that are socially monogamous still engage in extra pair copulations. This includes previous exemplars such as swans. Sometimes these extra-pair sexual activities lead to offspring. Genetic tests frequently show that some of the offspring raised by a monogamous pair come from the female mating with an extra-pair male partner.
So basically, if a male is in a relationship with a female where he is raising his offspring (at least he thinks they are his) it is also beneficial to spread his seed elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteHey, you, Miss GorgeousGirl... Wanna nekk in Heaven? Think about it. God bless.
ReplyDelete