Athée Canadien
Are the skeptical women overreacting?
By Katie
There has been some chatter on the blogosphere regarding the picture of Brian Dunning and the naked babe seen above, most notably from Surly Amy at Skepchick (which has a fun new design). The post, but more so the commenters, are cite Dunning’s past where he’s been overly arrogant, dismissive of criticism and sexist. Putting his past aside (I honestly think he’s a pretty pathetic skeptic, but that’s a story for another day) and simply looking at the picture I began to wonder if Surly Amy and the other women on my Facebook, newsfeeds and comments were simply overreacting to a supposed-to-be-cute cover.
Considering that the skeptical movement is supposed to think critically, be skeptical of the norm (such as gender roles) and be progressive… I decided that they’re not overreacting at all and that this cover makes me want to vomit on Dunning’s face.
The upper class white middle aged man is the dominant demographic in the atheist/skeptical community and I think they need to be going to greath lengths to ensure they’re not offending or demeaning any minority that is in the group. Sure, pictures like this help the ladies band together, but it’s not in a positive way. Its like when the Blag Hag had an incident where she felt uncomfortable and offended by a comment made about her breasts at a bar… The men in this movement should know better. What’s sad is the comment thread on Dunning’s release – someone brought up the issue of the picture… but it was, essentially, ignored. I also have yet to find a place where Dunning has defended or apologized for the photo (which doesn’t surprise me, sadly).
I’m not suggesting that the Skeptical community become a beacon for political correctness – I’m simply suggesting that leaders in the movement stop reinforcing demeaning and detrimental sexist stereotypes. Is that too much to ask?
| Print article | This entry was posted by Katie on April 17, 2011 at 1:21 am, and is filed under Skepticism. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Comments are closed.
about 1 year ago
No, no, it’s overreacting.
about 1 year ago
Not to say that there is not any legit reason to react, it’s overreacting though.
about 1 year ago
I often hear the refrain: you don’t have a right not to be offended.
It’s fairly common in skeptic/atheist circles, and most of the time its directed at religious people, who are offended in one way or another over criticism of religion. Sometimes it just an excuse for bad behavior.
Of course, there is a difference between useful and valid criticism of religion, and pissing on religion for fun. Phil Plait’s ‘don’t be a dick’ comment comes to mind.
Truth is, people are dicks all the time, and you don’t actually need a penis to be a dick.
If something offends you, you should say so, even if you are overreacting, because the other person may be ignorant to the offense. They might also be right, in a way you don’t understand, and/or they might be acting like a jerk.
I can see why some women would be offended by the picture, they should say so, and they might get an apology, but they shouldn’t expect one, being offensive is somewhat par for the skeptic course.
about 1 year ago
There are times to be offensive, but reaching out within our own community is not one of them. Why ostracise (what should be) 50% of our community simply because someone though a poster was funny?
about 1 year ago
I agree the ‘cover art’ was inept, not sure it was intentionally offensive, tho.
But as far as ‘agreeing’ when offensive is ok…. people in our community generally don’t… ever… agree on such things.
We have to accept as human beings that we will offend each other on occasion, what I would suggest, as always, is that even when we do get offended, we try and keep the discussion civil. Everyone makes mistakes, and sometimes we learn from them.
about 1 year ago
what is supposed to be going on in this picture? The naked chick is giving him some ball of energy, and he seems to be in need of said energy to run what is presumably his magical skeptic amp. Or is that a karaoke machine? A magical karaoke machine run on naked women’s skeptical energy balls?
about 1 year ago
If it was inspired by this, which I think it was, they really mucked it up.
http://www.fmlegacy.com/Graphics/rumours1.jpg
about 1 year ago
oh holy crap, that has to be what they were going for. wow.
about 1 year ago
@Joe #5 – Yup, I thought of Fleetwood Mac as soon as I saw the cover too!
#3 – I agree that we don’t have the right not to be offended. I do find this cover offensive for a number of reasons. That said, I don’t expect an apology. So long as I see a sufficient number of people also getting offended, I’m content.
I expect their to be some jerks. I accept that reality. It doesn’t bother me unless the jerkiness fails to get a reaction from people who really should be recognizing it for what it is.
about 1 year ago
I’m really curious to know why anyone would think that Brian Dunning is a “pathetic skeptic”. I’ve been listening to Skeptoid for about a year now and I haven’t detected anything that is askew.
about 1 year ago
Like Rob, I too am curious about the “pathetic skeptic” statement. Perhaps Katie will go into detail in a separate post.
about 1 year ago
I like the picture and continue to think people are overreacting, maybe because they believe it’s offensive or maybe because they feel *obligated* to overreact — and people will say “That’s not true” but I will still continue to believe there are at least some who go along that lines.. I know because that’s exactly why I *used* to overreact to these things.
Well I damn well have a right *not* to be offended, and I shall exercise that right.
I wish people would just lighten up about these things.
If the characters in the photo had been reversed, people would suddenly be calling it humorous, or artistic.. oh, you can say right now that you wouldn’t or that it would still be disgusting, but that isn’t fair once you’ve already seen *this* version of the cover. Had there been no previous version to compare it to in your mind’s eye, and the characters were reversed from the get-go, it would in fact come to pass that people would not react to it to this same degree. It just wouldn’t happen. There’d be some who still reacted poorly to it, but no where near the volume we have now.
I continue to have no problem with the photo. I find it weird but intriguing and not at all offensive.
about 1 year ago
I agree there are people who often feel the need to get ‘offended’, out of a sense of duty. All I can say is that my honest reaction to the photo was that I cringed. It wasn’t that I was offended, or thought I should be offended, I simply knew that others would be, and I think some of them are honestly so.
I don’t think however that there is an objective standard of offense. So the fact you weren’t offended, really doesn’t say anything about whether other people should be.
Further, I don’t think the ‘reversed’ argument has legs. Imagine a cartoon that has George Bush dressed up as a slave…. then one with Obama. They are not the same. The latter is more likely to honestly offend people. A naked man doesn’t equal a naked woman. There is huge amounts of historical baggage attached to those images. And how we value images is both personal and subjective.
about 1 year ago
“A naked man doesn’t equal a naked woman”
Very true :)
about 1 year ago
I am offended by this picture.
BUT I also recognize 2 things:
1) People may or may not care that I am offended
2) There is nothing I want or can do about it other than voice my displeasure.
I have no problem with her being naked. I have no problem with her on her knees. I have a problem with her on her knees naked offering something to a fully clothed man looking down on her haughtily.
I will never try to censor “art”… but I can judge it. And I can judge the people who made it and/or like it. A picture is worth a thousand words (cliché time!). And this picture screams submission. That is where the offense lies (for me at least).
I agree with Katie, though I don’t actually expect more from the skeptical community. She’s right that it’s mostly men and in that case there is no obvious reason to protest on behalf of women – why object when a naked women is involved?
about 1 year ago
Well said.
about 1 year ago
I don’t believe it is an overreaction. Honestly, I am saddened by the lack of understanding of those who criticize the women (and men) who find it hurtful.
A minority demographic, which has been told its place is on its knees underneath the powerful white capititalist male/_(or other)_ will understand the message in two ways: promotion of the harmful stereotypes and invalidation of the very real hurt. Both those say ‘disrespect’.
To say that that hurt is not legitimate because it is not understood is slapping an open wound. A slap on the back to someone without that wound can be seen as friendly or funny. When it hits an open sore, it is hurtful – intentional or not.
I would love to live in a world where a woman in a submissive pose is neutral instead of a reflection of a very real oppression. But, we don’t. Until then, why are people so defensive and quick to criticize those hurting instead of taking the time to understand the wounds?
about 1 year ago
I find it baffling that people look at pictures like this as an isolated incident and conclude “overreaction”. If this was the only sort of disrespect that women in the skeptical community faced, then yes it would be an overreaction. If the panel discussion from a couple months back about how to get “the females” more active was an isolated incident, then the reaction would have been an overreaction. If a single conference had dismal representation from female skeptics, then making a big deal about it would be an overreaction.
That’s not the case, and everyone knows this. Why anyone thinks “stop overreacting” is a reasonable criticism with regards to this issue is beyond me, and anyone who says it takes a precipitous drop in respect in my books.