Comments on: Sluts are Stupid!!!

By: Nicole

Nicole — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:48:59 +0000

I think you and Daniel Loxton make a perfectly complimentary duo of skepticism.
I really just filter most comments on most blogs, or don’t even bother. Sometimes Jenny’s past career as a Playboy model come up as “yeah, this is why she was originally famous.” And I have no problem with that. Saying they are a position of authority for her is incorrect, she derives it from her “mommy instincts” which is a load of bull, of course, and that’s what skeptics ought to be railing against (and do at times.)
As for outbursts of hatred, maybe there needs to be a “safe space” where skeptics can vent when they want to be irrational but don’t want others to see them looking like jerks. As it is now, blogs are sort of like, except they are accessible to everyone with an internet connection.
For example, I try and keep my online persona polite, but I’m really a total bitch in person ;-)

By: Rev Matt

Rev Matt — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:49:58 +0000

To take a step back from the emotionally charged specifics involved, these sorts of comments are at core ad hominem attacks. Unless directly related to the issue at hand (e.g. calling someone claiming medical or academic credentials they didn’t have a fraud would be ad hominem, but also extremely relevant) ad hominem attacks make the attacker appear to have no valid critique of their target and thus resort to name calling.
In the case of someone like Jenny McCarthy or Oprah there are plenty of objective criticisms that can be made without even their gender, let alone their appearance/sexual mores/desirability/etc, being brought into the discussion.
I’m seeing the topic of women in skepticism being discussed more and more of late which I think is a wonderful thing. If we as skeptics want to reach more people we need to be able to communicate with all sorts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc etc. Our movement is traditionally seen as beardy old white guys, not a sustainable demographic over the long haul.
It is my hope that the younger skeptical activists that are becoming more and more prominent around the world (Young Australian Skeptics, Righteous Indignation podcast, CFI’s Camp Inquiry, and many many more) will bring in more perspectives and people who will advocate for rational and fact-based debates on issues.

By: Jessika

Jessika — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:08:18 +0000

You know I love this, since I’ve now told you on Twitter, FB, and here, too! I’ll say it again though. You ROCK!
Feminism works by defending sexist attacks, no matter who the person is. That doesn’t mean we support the person’s view or agree with them. So for me, I feel better calling myself a feminist when I call out sexism and misogyny when I see it.
One thing that’s irked me a lot lately, which I find kind of funny really, is when people use the line “you ignorant slut”. I’ll bet most of them don’t even know the SNL skit the line came from. I think the bit is funny, when seen in context, but when people use it in attacks like the ones you’ve shown, it’s tasteless and sexist.
Keep on being the awesome person you are!

By: exarch

exarch — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:35:29 +0000

I don’t know Heidi. As one of the articles you referenced as proof clearly stated, the only reason Jenny McCarthy has this “authority” in the eyes of some people is that she used to be a playboy model and is now a mommy. Neither of those are particularly intelectually challenging endeavours (i.e. any female with nice cleavage and a functioning reproductive organ could do what she did). A brain is not really needed.
So if she’s using her “accomplichments” as a basis for making her claims (as quite some anti vaxxers do by the way: “You’re not a mommy, so STFU”), I think it’s only fair to attack the message by attacking those pillars of their authority.
Likewise, I would critique a scientists buy-your-degree to put his credibility in question. Because it is.
I’m not defending people who attack Oprah merely for being fat. I will defend people who point out that Oprah got much of her fame by playing the fat-card, then got thin, then got fat again, etc…
I think she also plays the race-card frequently, but it’s just not socially acceptable to point that out.
Anyway, I suppose there’s a line there. The AoA folks clearly crossed it, as none of the scientists in the picture got to be authorities in their fields by eating babies, so it’s not a critique, but an outright insult.

By: Elixabeth

Elixabeth — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:51:33 +0000

Just because there is pseudoscience doesn’t mean that there should be no debate. Debating the pseudoscience and intellectual dishonesty, as well as debating the science, is necessary.

By: Elixabeth

Elixabeth — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:59:09 +0000

I agree. Jenny’s boobs really shouldn’t have anything to do with her political opinions or career after MTV. Who cares? WE DON’T OWN HER. As a celebrity she is not running for public office and so should not be subjected to as much scrutany.
When a pretty woman is in front of a movement it is polarizing. Some people will love her for her boobs and some will hate her. It divides the opinions much more then a boring middle aged man. The whole virgin-whore dichotomy. Perhaps the reason why people are attacking Oprah as unfuckable is that they don’t like her opinions but she isn’t young enough for them to view her sexually. After all she’s old enough to be many of our mothers; also consider the racism element.
Money also talks. Perhaps that is why some people seem incredibly threatened by her opinions, as medical supplies are very profitable, particularly if you don’t have to do any new research. Not all grass roots movements start with ordinary people, now culture has the priviledge of dedicated lobbyists too! Even if many people generally support the use of vaccines, I doubt that many of us would be moved to such virulent positions without encouragement. Who knows who starts these movements?
And why not debate medical issues? The impression I had is that it might not be the best idea to get rid of vaccines, but that some of the ingrediants could be bad for you. There is a third position that could be taken, that it might be good to plow more money into research and making better quality vaccines or at least admitting there should be no one model for our health, as the lack of intellectual diversity creates stagnation. This way of looking at the world will surely kill all chance of curing new diseases.

By: Heidi

Heidi — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:19:19 +0000

Nicole, it probably always will be background noise. Considering your job, you are probably MUCH better at filtering through what is important and unimportant noise.
I just got SO sick of hearing Jenny McCarthy be called a slut and Oprah be called a fatty fat fat by people supposedly towing the rationalists line.
OMG I AM becoming Daniel Loxton.
Heidi

By: Nicole

Nicole — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:59:01 +0000

I don’t know, maybe I’m missing some empathetic part of my brain or something… but I couldn’t find myself getting all that upset over the misogynistic, baby-eating anti-vaxxers or boob-obsessed skeptics. I think when there is such an emotional topic on the line, children’s health, people are going to get out of hand or talk about something irrelevant and, as far as I’m concerned, that’s just noise that will always be there.
I see your point, and it’s good every once in a while to remind skeptics to stay on topic. I just doubt that any group could eradicate that baseline noise.

By: Heidi

Heidi — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:56:20 +0000

Joshua, can you help me understand what you mean by the virulence and scale of misogyny on the anti-vax side?
Not being bitchy at all, its just that the Skepchick post was the first incident I have heard of.

By: k1

k1 — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:37:55 +0000

Thank you for the excellent post. I couldn’t agree with you more. I have stopped reading a number of skeptical blogs due to this problem. We are better than this name calling, we need to stick to the facts.