Battling sexism

Recently there have been yet more stories centred around sexism and misogyny in our culture. I’d like to discuss two that have interested me this week.

At least they got the apostrophes right..? Via guardian.co.uk

A battle won

Today, thankfully, there has been some Good News! A rarity, it sometimes seems, and something to be celebrated. Congratulations to the Science Museum and everyone who spoke up about Boots separating their children’s toys by gender, and including the sciencey ones only in the boys’ section.

Other retailers have binned this outdated, damaging stereotyping behaviour so, while it’s unfortunate that it’s taken a company like Boots so long, it’s good to see them following suit.

“…It’s clear we have got this signage wrong, and we’re taking immediate steps to remove it from store.” – Boots

Yes, it’s wrong. I’ve said so before and will continue to be angered by needless gender separations in stores for e.g. toys and magazines.

It may well be a bit of a chicken and egg situation. So they say they organised it with the separation because of “customer feedback” – parents want to find toys for their boy/girl easily? They can’t just browse a toys section and pick out something they’d like?

photo by Andrew Holding

To be honest, that sounds like it’s parental stereotyping at work. I’m not going to buy dolls for my boys or cars for my girls, that wouldn’t be right. Well, parents, I implore you – consider your child as a person, irrespective of their genitals/chromosomes, and encourage them in what they enjoy, what they find fascinating, whether you think it’s “gender-appropriate” or not. Be better.

Unfortunately there are other stores – such as Morrisons and Clarks (see image) – who continue to separate toys like this, and it’s frustrating for some parents. Read more in this article by Andrew Holding.

Edit: I have also contacted Wilkinson regarding their toy section that I spotted in Stratford recently. Through this I have discovered this excellent Twitter account, LetToysBeToys! They even have a petition.

A new conflict

You may also have heard that the Bank of England is suggesting that Churchill replace Elizabeth Fry on our £5 notes, which would likely come into effect in a few years, in 2016. This would leave no women on our banknotes. If you really think people are so stupid that you have to point out that the Queen is a woman, you are entirely missing the point. If I must explain, the figures on our notes (apart from the current monarch) are there because of their achievements; their contributions to society and UK progress. Not because they were born into a royal family. So be quiet.

At first glance, this might not seem like the worst thing. The figures on our bank notes change periodically, when we have to redesign the notes to counter fraud. Elizabeth Fry has been on £5 notes since 2002, and we had Florence Nightingale on £10 notes from 1975 to 1994. But they are the only two women, and replacing Fry will erase all acknowledgment of female achievement from our notes for some time – unless one of the others is redesigned with a new female figure at the same time.

Today’s BBC Radio 4 Woman’s Hour episode included a discussion on the banknotes decision (8 mins long in the link). Plenty of female candidates were pointed out; that most won’t have heard of many of them, despite their amazing work (for example, Beatrice Webb, economist and co-founder of the LSE), is surely reason to increase visibility of forgotten female influences in our history.

Wut about the menz?

I do not accept the argument that history has recorded men as the winners, therefore we should accurately represent that. Here and now we are trying to create a more equal society (well, some of us are) and part of that is doing what we can to correct the mistakes of the past. Acknowledge that sexism and misogyny are alive and well, and used to be even worse – so let’s pull the suppressed achievements of women out of the dark and show them to people living and growing up now. Similar instances of just that include the edit-a-thons in which people have dedicated time to editing pages to give due credit to women, for example in the history of science.

This is important for young women (and men) – to realise that gender is not a barrier to achievement, despite what the history books may show. These little sexist acts build up, and while lacking female role models on banknotes may be a little thing in isolation, it’s one of many that add together to give young people the message that women are underachieving and undeserving of recognition.

I do not agree that striving to have at least one woman on our notes, giving some small recognition to the contributions of approximately half of the population that have been systematically erased, is overcompensating or being unfair to men. Striving for something closer to equality instead of extreme (pro-male) bias, whether that bias be “historically-accurate” or not, is not overcompensating, only pushing for equality. That’s feminism, it’s not asking for no men to be recognised, only to make a positive change that will address an imbalance.

Aside from the gender balance issue, there are other reasons we might object to putting Churchill in particular on our notes (thanks to Liz for pointing that one out).

This will depend on your view of what our currency is for. If you think it’s simply a leaf out of the history books, then this is unlikely to bother you.  The Guardian have picked up on the story and are running a poll. If, however, you would like to object to the removal of all female achievers from our bank notes, you can sign the petition. Also follow @weekwoman and @TheWomensRoomUK on Twitter for more.

Edit: spectacularly on-topic and brilliant is Suzanne Moore’s article today about successful women eschewing feminism as if they don’t need it and never benefited from it. I have had direct experience of this kind of sentiment and am very glad someone has hit the nail on the head with a piece like this.

Another edit: I have also had a rant about the banknotes on this week’s Pod Delusion. Indeed, it is worth acknowledging that Clydesdale bank do in fact have two women on their banknotes; Mary Slessor on the £10 note (bit of a double-edged sword; women’s rights yay! Christianity-spreading boo) and Elsie Inglis on the £50 note – an excellent physician and suffragist.

The silent misogyny

This post brings in a few different stories to make my point, which ultimately is a simple one, yet it still seems to pass many people by. The insistence that women are already equal (more or less) and feminism is stupid is one I am faced with quite frequently. Obviously I disagree – if you know me or my writing you probably know I will make a case for the importance of feminism, or, if you prefer, pushing for gender equality.

I find the definition of words used in such debates to detract from the point somewhat, but in the interests of clarity… skip to the end*, because I don’t think that’s the interesting bit!

No breasts, please, we’re bishops

I’m sure you will have seen the news that the church has decided women can’t be bishops. I’ve had a few conversations about this and as I have a lot of friends who are also entirely non-religious, a lot of the talk has been along the lines of:

Well it’s irrelevant…

I disagree [edit, here's the BHA on it]. No, I’m not religious. I would much prefer it if women stopped trying to join the clubs that promote misogyny. “Bring them down from the inside!” doesn’t quite work, I don’t think, but hey – I’m all for choice and if women want to work in/for the church, that’s ultimately up to them. Except it isn’t, because the church has now stuck two fingers up at the equality laws we have by preventing women from holding this position of power.

The knock-on of this is that the House of Lords is also to remain a women-free zone. Despite us making up half the country’s population. That’s not representative and it’s not acceptable. That is why it’s relevant – the church, shockingly, still has a huge say in our country’s policies, it affects popular opinion and a brazen vote of no confidence in women is not something we should just wave off as being of no consequence. Maybe it’s not to you, Mr Atheist White Man, and yes it shows up the church for what it is (a backwards bunch of bigots who want to operate outside of the law) but that doesn’t mean we should ignore it.

From cradle to work desk

Our workplaces are often where we spend a lot of our time. Employment law, including the example linked above, is important in making sure everyone is treated fairly in the workplace and companies as a whole do not discriminate. Science, sadly, is not yet free of sexism. There’s a really interesting piece on Nature.com today about their resolve to address inequality in their publishing sphere. They acknowledge, as I do below, that sexism can frequently happen “by accident”. The only way to stop this is to look at the evidence for inequality, accept that it exists and then go on to address it. So I hope this is the start of something great over at Nature HQ – it also reminds me of recent attempts to increase the public profile of women in science, for example by mass-editing Wikipedia.

However, inequality in the workplace, whether due to hiring policy (conscious or not) or applications coming in, has its roots deeper, earlier in our lives. A little bit of anecdote in this run-up: when I went camping this summer, there was a family who pitched next to us with about 4 children. This proved unpleasant in terms of trying to sleep, but one of the little girls (about age 5) was very chatty and I warmed to her a bit when she informed us of her hope of becoming an astronaut and maybe going to Mars. I asked her if she’d heard about the cool new robot that had gone to the planet, and asked her to promise to let us know when she became famous. What was sad, though, was her saying she enjoyed doing ballet but wished her brother would go too, only “boys can’t do that” – why not? Go and be an astronaut! Let him do what he enjoys!

I was never forced to do anything like ballet or other ‘girly’ activities equally unappealing to me, and I’m glad. My interest in the natural world was always supported. I played golf for a while (but was put off by the overwhelming anti-female sentiment that pervaded the club and my dad’s apparent disinterest in helping me to improve) and I did some karate. I have also been upset by hearing friends’ parental resentment that son A likes dancing (oh no!), unlike son B who’s a good boy and loves rugby. Why not encourage your kids in whatever they take to, whatever they want to get better at, instead of all this gender roles bullshit?

Importantly, all of this stuff can influence decisions we make as children and young people, which can then filter into our careers later in life. Here in the UK we choose our limited number of subjects quite early on. The Institute of Physics report on how few girls go on to study physics A level is quite disturbing, and no doubt this continuing idea that girls-do-X and boys-do-Y is partly to blame. Please rein it in, parents, teachers, siblings, companies, everyone.

The ugly undercurrent

This leads me to my final comment, on the phenomenon I refer to in the title. Only for many it is not so silent. The first link I added, to this article by Laura Bates who founded the Everyday Sexism Project, highlights the kind of behaviour that often goes unchallenged despite how unacceptable and damaging it really is:

as another woman cycled through central London she reported how, “a van driver blocked my path so he could shout “I’M GOING TO RAPE YOU!”

Who was this man? It would not surprise me if he were a married father of however many, doing his dayjob. I posted this article on Facebook with my thoughts on what this all means: what amazes me, particularly considering this van driver, is that these people have lives and friends – what would said friends, family, employers, say about their behaviour? How would they feel if they saw someone behaving that way towards a woman whom they loved?

It seems there’s a big disconnect still in many people’s lives – a distinction between people-I-know-who-are-female, whom they care about and respect, and women generally. The latter are public property, exist for their amusement/pleasure/derision, and can be treated like less than human beings. That is our institutional misogyny, that is our problem to address.

I do believe that these attitudes are very much worth talking about, worth exposing and criticising, worth combating. I think it affects all of us – if you’re someone who feels this stuff is irrelevant, maybe you have a daughter or a sister. I bet she’s experienced some of this. Maybe this has made her let go of her dreams. Maybe that happened to your mum, too. Are you ok with that? I hope not.

*My definitions

Feminism is about equal treatment based on gender, not preferential treatment of women (just, preferential compared to what we have now, which is inequality, and if you disagree with that then my use of the word obviously will not please you. I don’t care).

Misogyny is a word I would use to describe cultural attitudes, widespread phenomena that affect women negatively and prevent progress, injustices suffered disproportionately by women. I’d hesitate to call someone a misogynist because yes, it literally means the hatred of women, but the meanings of words can change. Although, if someone is quite clearly hateful of women because they are women, then I would be more confident in using it.

Sexism would be something I would say to describe one or many acts of discrimination based on gender, and I would more readily call someone sexist than a misogynist because it seems less emotionally driven; sexism can come from unconscious places but let’s call a spade a spade. Don’t be offended because you’ve been called out on something, if ultimately it is true.

A lot of the attitudes people hold are passively generated, due to where one grows up, the views passed on to you, and how much you choose to examine them. This is the same for any kind of prejudice. Children are a blank slate and largely free from judgmental tendencies, but it depends on their environment as to how they’ll turn out. Parents and peers have great effects on the development of views about the rest of society; the categories you fall into, and those you don’t.

I grew up with a lot of homophobia, sexism and other nasty things – it’s taking me years, a lot of reading, interaction and thought to acknowledge and address this. I don’t think there’s any shame in admitting that – only in doing nothing to rectify it. I’m not done yet.

The sound of silence

A probably-triggery post about people’s attitudes towards abuse, institutionalised and otherwise.

I’m going to have to jump on the Savile-comment bandwagon, simply because I’ve had a lot of conversations about it so it’s kind of cathartic to get some of my thoughts down in a post. Also pertinent given the fresh turmoil happening at the BBC as of yesterday. Edit: the Guardian liveblogged the Panorama episode looking into why Newsnight dropped their investigative work on Savile.

Essentially I’m disturbed by how many people are following the typical pattern that allows abuse to become institutionalised, sustained and widespread in the first place. Doubting victims’ testimonies, defending alleged perpetrators to the last (even when they’re dead!!) and putting the what-if-they’re-innocent scenario above the what-if-all-these-people’s-lives-have-been-shattered one.

It is strange that false accusations of rape and abuse are so much more abhored than other more common false accusations; yes, whenever it happens, it’s awful and the false accuser should (and in all likelihood is) punished. But I’m afraid I find the low conviction rate and shockingly high incidence of rape and sexual abuse far more offensive and worthy of address. Yes, false accusations can ruin lives. But actual child abuse ruins more lives far more severely, and unless we’re looking someone with a life ahead of them in the face, who is charged with something and found to be innocent, I’m afraid I’ll believe the people who stand up and tell their stories over – importantly here, I think – a dead man.

Why are they only coming forward now?

I think this smacks of a severe lack of empathy and thinking through the situation. Imagine yourself an abused child, with no frame of reference, in a structure that protects the people taking advantage of you. What are you going to do? How long is it going to take you to come to terms with that? When you finally do, what are you going to do now? Is that power structure still in place? Given all the people who are so ready to doubt those who come forward, I know I wouldn’t be comfortable or confident in doing so. Edit: do read this excellent New Statesman piece by someone with personal experience.

Also, how many people did come forward earlier, at the time, and you’re just not aware of it? How dare you judge people you’ve never met, who likely have severe trauma in their past to be dealing with, just because they haven’t come under your radar? That’s the thing about being silenced – it’s easy to miss, being all, you know, silent.

How many of them were silenced? A quick look on @everydaysexism shows that even when people do have the guts to complain about the way they’ve been treated, it’s generally easier to silence a complaint than to address the problem by way of discipline, sacking or appropriate legal action. People take the easy way out, the culture is protected.

We can probably compare with catholic abuse cases. Often laughed about, how the choirboys were ‘fiddled with’, but how many of those men and women have had to grow old with their secret, learning to live with it as best they can, perhaps finally being able to come forward when their abuser dies or somehow another allegation brings them into disrepute, thus opening a window? Child abuse is not an isolated violation, it has long-term and far-reaching consequences.

I have far too many friends who have suffered abuse and left it unreported because the perpetrator is in a position of power. Not even one so immense as Savile’s, just a friend or acquaintance or colleague – you know their friends will believe them over you. By the time you’ve worked out what’s happened and come to terms with it, surely it’s too late? Wasn’t it a bit your fault as well (no)? Imagine the victims of even more powerful individuals. Our culture is set up to protect them, and it will continue to do so while you stand there and ask me what I think about it all, because…

What if he’s innocent?

In all honesty, I don’t give a fuck – I’d rather more and more real victims feel safe in coming forward. Not just in this case, but others as well. The ball is rolling, take a look at what’s there, think on what happens every day that you’re unaware of, and try being supportive and trusting, instead of defending an incredibly destructive culture that surely we would all rather see changing for the better.

Again, it’s bold to accuse so many people you have not met of being liars. It’s hardly something I’d make up for a laugh, nor would most. Why do you care so much about a dead man’s reputation? His family? Sure, it’s got to be a tough time for them, but similarly with any close to those who commit crimes, or are accused of them. What about the individuals who claim to have been affected, their families, the victims and their lives, still ongoing? I’m simply inclined to care much more about the living than the deceased.

I think a major stumbling block is that people would rather believe folks are nice, and can’t reconcile knowing someone in one capacity (i.e. a popular public icon) with them also being a criminal. We see it whenever a murderer is convicted (or killed) “oh but they seemed so lovely, I didn’t think they’d hurt a fly!” – why would you? But it is an interesting and strange contrast with people judging those coming out with very difficult things, people whom they don’t even know, to be money-grabbing liars. That feels like a huge double-standard, and why is it that way around? Funny how innocent-til-proven-guilty only seems to apply to the accused in these cases?

—

I think they’re the main things that have been getting to me. It’s interesting to see how it develops, and I’m going to remain optimistic that this will mean changes for the better in the structure of the BBC and other institutions. There are far more serious problems coming to light here than just the reputation of a presenter who liked cigars, bling and tracksuits.

Edit: the consensus seems to be that this comment is probably the most disturbing, and indicative of a wider culture of disbelieving victims and marginalising women in particular:

“Our sources so far are just the women and a second hand briefing.”

“Just the women”? “Just” people coming forward to report things that have happened to them? Just that? There’s your problem.

—

Some links:

An excellent guardian article on issue of power and silencing paedophiles plus media involvement.

A journalist explains that silencing, sexist, pressuring behaviour was commonplace.

Heresy Corner asks why the whole thing didn’t come out earlier in the year. Let’s not forget the extraordinary power the media tends to have over our awareness, knowledge and opinions.

Persecuted? Really?!

Shut up.

That was the original full title of something I wrote a while back in a small fit of rage, regarding religious people who insist they’re being “unfairly marginalised” and other such stupid phrases, just because their (actually unfair) institutional privilege is being eroded a bit. Toys out of pram, etc.

So I’m reposting it here with some significant adjustments in light of recent events – hoping that not everyone who saw it first time will remember it, and that it will reach some new people.

First, this week we have had the utterly shocking and disgusting news that some Pakistani militants decided to shoot a 14 year-old girl in the head because she was a secular activist who spoke out about the problems in her country. As a friend said, surely you can be fairly confident you’re holding a better position when you are not scared into shooting teenage girls?

Second, do read this excellent piece by Martin Robbins in response to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s suggestions that because they’re not allowed to discriminate against the gays, the christians are being discriminated against. It’s a short but difficult read and it needed saying.

On to my (somewhat sweary) rant, which I’ve edited a bit to update and worked in some of the following discussion at the end. Feel free to continue it!

—

There was a story doing the rounds some time ago about a man who was told by the police to remove a little A4 printed sign from his window. I just wanted to use it as a springboard to complain about something that’s really been getting on my nerves lately. It said:

Religions are fairy stories for adults

It turns out, according to the police, that it wasn’t actually true. Regardless, I can see why people don’t like that kind of statement – if you think your religion is all about the truth and the greatest philosophy and moral this and purpose that, I can see why you wouldn’t like such a statement.

But, you know what I don’t like?

I don’t like people in town centres shoving flyers at me that are all about how only the people who believe Jesus was the son of god are the righteous ones, and they’ll be rewarded after death, while the firey pits of hell are reserved for the likes of me, my friends and all the other cool people in the world.

I don’t like adverts on the buses, on the underground, on the side of the road – saying that your church is the best one and the only way to salvation is through joining your social club.

I don’t like people knocking on my fucking front door when I’m busy (or not) doing my own thing in my house.

So I’m sorry if you don’t like something someone printed on a piece of paper and put in their window.

You know what else people can put in their own windows? Pretty much whatever they want. Religious symbols; statements of political leaning and for whom you plan to vote, thus hoping to influence others; flags of this nation, another, or some random sign of allegiance like to a sports team or something.

That’s fine really, because it’s your house to do with as you will! Within the bounds of the law. And guess what? We don’t have blasphemy laws any more, thank the invisible pink unicorn.

You know what else pisses me off?

We’re being persecuted for having faith! We should be allowed to show it and be proud of it! You militant atheists/secularists/satanists, you’re ruining it for us!

Again, no, shut your wafer-hole.

Persecuted? Really? Hmm, let’s see, when I walk around London, for example, what can I see from lots of places? St Paul’s Cathedral, there are churches all over the place, you can barely move for them. Similarly in many cities. Not just churches either, the mosque dominates one direction of views from Regent’s Park as well. Plus everyone knows the joys of Tottenham Court Road – there be the Scientologists’ lair! And If you want to cross the Millennium Bridge to go to the Tate Modern (opposite St Paul’s), you’ll wander past the Salvation Army headquarters, a big spangly glass place.

Apart from people who’ve actually been there, I doubt anyone can name any of the humanist hubs in London; there’s Conway Hall, an old lecture theatre that holds talks and the like, there’re the BHA head offices on Gower St, a squished terrace building with about 4 storeys (where I used to sing, incidentally).

Both of them are inconspicuous – you’ll only notice Conway Hall’s agenda if you stop at the window and start reading the posters and things. Compared to the churches that reach for the sky, the temples with their huge (and often patronising) signs, I fail to see how anyone is being restricting in showing off or practising their faith here.

But a man puts a poster in a window? Fucking militant atheists shoving their non-belief in our faces!!

How many presidents of the US have been Christian? Hmm. How much of an absolute revelation was it for Obama to even acknowledge that people of no faith even exist? Being an atheist in America is one of the worst things you could possibly admit to at the moment. It can lead to bullying, discrimination and far worse.

Following the state religion, or in some cases any religion (where secular values and personal freedoms are generally upheld, I’m not going into religious feuds/wars and such here) tends to give you a fucktonne of privilege, people.

So, if you start talking to me about religion-things, and I eventually get bored or ask you to be quiet, because it’s nonsense to me, don’t tell me that I’m the militant one. For one, I despise violence, it rubs my moral compass the wrong way (guess what, I have one without a god-book, so do you – how else did you know which bits were worth following and which weren’t??). So militant is probably one of the poorest word choices you could have made in the first place.

Tell me next time you get handed an atheist flyer that tells you you’re a bad person, or you see a massive sign telling you you should become an atheist right now or else!

Secularism upholds your right to have a religion, as well as mine not to have one, so kindly gtfo with your persecution tosh, live, and let live.

—

The story I originally mentioned may not be accurate, but we need not look far to find stories that most certainly did happen; people being angry about losing their jobs because, er, they weren’t doing the job (see the refusal to perform civil ceremonies because onoesthegays that’s against my religion – well you better do a job you can do then, don’t expect the world to change for you).

There’s the rage about not being allowed to display your religious symbols wherever and however you like – whatever the situation. Sometimes it’s inappropriate. Yet somehow this translates to persecution?!

How many people do you see walking down the street, whom you can identify as non-religious? Very few indeed (with the advent of the stylised A and some funny tshirts, sometimes you can spot a few, but I still think these are largely confined to specific events.

Signs of religious affiliation are all around us – sometimes I do find it a bit intimidating, but I’ve never bothered to complain to anyone because, well, so far it hasn’t hurt me. And I hope it never will.

The idea that people are discriminated against for being religious is just madness, they need to open their eyes. We’ve still got religious schools for fuck’s sake, where kids are discriminated against based on their parents’ religion, and even teachers refused jobs. Religious groups have hugely unjust influence in government and policy… need I go on.

It’s the same deal as with the “men’s rights” movement. Traditional privilege-holders getting upset that their (literally?) god-given elevated status over everyone else is being challenged and the balance redressed.

No special status for anyone; freedom for all – separate church and state!!

*Waves placards*

—

Here is the most excellent Popehat discussing the aforementioned somewhat shocking legal standpoint:

http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/20/we-few-we-fragile-few/

He concluded:

“What is the character of a person who sees a sign like that in a pensioner’s window, and runs to the police to complain?

Could a person with such character stand up, against great odds, in the face of the the very casques that did affright the air at Agincourt? Could such a person do his duty, as England expected, at Trafalgar? Could such a person keep calm and carry on? Would such a person fight on beaches, on landing grounds, in fields and streets, in the hills, and never surrender? Is such a person capable of having a finest hour?

I ask because of this: societies that make rules like this one, encouraging its citizens to scamper mewling behind the skirts of the government when faced with the least offense, produce people with the character necessary to take them up on the offer. It is hard to imagine how a nation run by people of that character can endure — or at least, how it can endure as anyplace you’d want to live. “

And from a friend who is a somewhat high-powered lawyer as well:

“Any law which opens an individual up to prosecution for making a statement needs to be justified as dealing with a real harm that outweighs freedom of expression. This law just doesn’t make the cut, so yes, we need to reform it (the civil liberties/human rights groups were screaming about this at the time).”

—

Essentially, any time I hear someone whining about their religious ‘freedom’ being ‘attacked’ just because they’re being made to fall in line with the progression of society, with the law, with not-being-a-bigoted-dickhead – they get zero sympathy from me.

Taking a stand

This is a repost from Michael’s blog. I’m sharing it because it’s very important that people acknowledge and, hopefully, do something about this.

Importantly, those who are unfamiliar with things like Skeptics in the Pub should not take it to mean that it’s a horrible place to go – it’s not! I’ve been a regular for some years now; I have made, and continue to make, lots of amazing friends there, I will always encourage people to go because it’s interesting and fun.

As self-proclaimed progressive types, I feel it’s necessary to address the issues we consider within our communities as well as outside of them. Therefore, there is a responsibility among those of us with a voice to stand up for those without and to address unacceptable behaviour where it occurs – wherever it occurs. Even if the behaviour in question comes from someone with a fair amount of power, who to an extent represents the community (but does not reflect it with said behaviour), who may try to intimidate people into silence. Especially if that is the case.

Please repost, without comments, if you wish to show your support; with the hashtag #gotyourback, if it please you.

—

I like going to public lectures; I’ve met some great friends and friends who became colleagues there, many of whom I saw last weekend at the post Pod Delusion Live drinks. I’ve spoken at Ignite, done the odd Skeptics in the Pub as part of a double act with Martin Robbins and will be giving a solo presentation about my own hobby horse at Leicester in January, but I don’t feel that my attendance at things like Skeptics is an identity that represents me the way that some of the hardcore members do. So maybe it’s not my place to join in with the current schism, and plenty of very knowledgeable people have already written on this topic, but it seems like recently everyone has been having their say over the latest atheists/skeptics contretemps  so I’m going to demonstrate the levelling power of the internet and stick my oar in.

The issue of the day is sexism/feminism and the debate is splitting down two rough sides: those who find religion immoral or irritating and want to campaign against it with no time devoted to anything else, and those whose objection to religion is part of a generally progressive agenda (frequently called ‘social justice’), and who feel that organised atheism is in danger of replicating the same old problems which religions have perpetuated.

Part of the problem here is that skepticism and feminism are coming from different traditions: feminism has historically been less concerned about evidence and more about consciousness-raising, while skepticism treats evidence as a gold standard and denigrates anecdotes (valued in feminism as ‘lived experience’) as meaningless. Many feminists treat a speaker’s identity as central to their credibility (this is where concepts like ‘mansplaining’ come in) while skepticism is about ignoring the identity of the speaker and focusing solely on the quality of evidence or logic they present. It’s easy to see how these different ways of looking at the world could magnify any argument and turn mild disagreements into longlasting bitter hostility, even before the current level of childishness, name-calling and abuse started.

Now after all that summary, I want to talk about my experience of sexism and harassment. Skeptics, you can dismiss this as an N=1 anecdote, but please at least read it. I have personally witnessed a prominent person getting disturbingly touchy-feely with women and getting away with it, despite the knowledge of nearly everyone who knows him. What’s more I’m willing to bet that you know who I am talking about from just reading the previous sentence. 

- Oars

I first became aware of this at the beginning of last year, though since I voiced my concerns to others I have been hearing that the behaviour in question has been going a lot longer than that. I was at a Skeptics in the Pub, chatting to some friends and getting a drink at the bar (I am a teetotaller, so you can be assured that none of my account has been blurred by intoxication). I heard a bit of a commotion, turned round and saw this fellow (who had had a few drinks) giving an unwilling woman a hug- not a friendly hug, but one which led crotch first, grabbing her around the hips/bum and leaning in as the she bent right back to escape his advances. It was the sort of thing that could have been a joke but as it went on it became clear that she wasn’t playing. Now she didn’t scream or shout or anything, but she was certainly uncomfortable and it was unpleasant to witness. Right there I did something rather cowardly- I convinced myself that I hadn’t seen anything significant. The fact that I remember it so clearly today tells you that this was self-deception, but it was right on the boundary of being ok. I didn’t know either of these people personally, it might have been play-acting, etc. You make up reasons not to get involved.

It was only when I saw this happen again and again that I realised that there was a pattern to this behaviour- it went so far as to be pushing up against the level at which bystanders would start intervening, but not quite going over it. Over time, as his power and influence grew I noticed that he could go further and further and get away with it. Once someone’s prominence gets to a certain point it becomes very hard to criticise them. You think that if they were a predator someone else would have noticed or complained- surely some of those prominent feminist women (and men) in the media with whom he associates would have said something? I don’t know whether they are intimidated or what, but not one has commented in public.

In private, a number of stories have been circulating for years, many of which are more serious than the incidents I have described. I can’t verify any of these accounts, but the fact that they are readily accepted is telling.

So what to do? If you think this post might be about you, then take responsibility for your behaviour and apologise where necessary. If you see this behaviour, don’t stay silent. 

For all the fact that this has pissed me off a huge amount, I am wary of naming the offending person. He’s someone with a lot of clout, someone who could make life very difficult for anyone who identified him. I feel it’s up to someone whom he has victimised to make that call, but if that’s you and you are reading this then I will absolutely back you up.

I’m posting this with comments closed, I suppose what this has taught me is that it is perfectly possible for a problem like this to exist, not really tolerated but not ever really dealt with either. Let’s knock this on the head before something more serious happens, because experience has taught me that it almost certainly will.