[Discussion] Men talking to men about Feminism

This thread is for people who believe that when it comes to feminism it's important for men to listen to women and to talk to men.

In this thread we assume Feminism is something you wholeheartedly support or want to support. Questions about the validity of Feminism are for somewhere else.

edit: removed, not adding anything in retrospect. My apologies.

Ok I have a feeling this is not going to go over well but......who is Neil Degrasso Tyson and why is he a big deal? Wikipedia tells me he’s an astrophysicist who has been on the Colbert show.

I understand I’m being clueless here but is he Famous because he’s a scientist or some kind of pop celebrity?

I only pay attention to biological science so please don’t take offense to my ignorance.

Doc,

He’s one of those people famous for having a degree and an opinion about things.

You may not know him by name but I am guessing you’ve at least seen or heard him speak if you frequent sites like GWJ.

He’s been a figure in geek pop culture for a few years with various memes, TV shows, and media appearances.

I have a friend who is an astrophysicist, and his personal anecdotes of witnessing Tyson behave at the borders of appropriateness at conferences certainly line up with the pattern you would expect to see. Like, the sort of behavior where if there was an established rapport or relationship with the women in question, it might be okay, but my friend's read was always that no such rapport existed, and Tyson was making creepy, unwanted advances that were only tolerated due to his position and power. Like, exactly what the newer allegations describe.

So, suffice to say, my friend has never been a fan, and gave great credence to the allegations even when it was just the one report of a 30+ year old incident, which surfaced back in what, 2015 or 2016? But then, puzzlingly, nothing more developed for quite a long time. For at least a year, maybe more like two, every time I googled it, there were always the same meager results with no sign that anyone was following up or adding to the claims — which certainly would have been par for the course previously, but this was through the time where the #metoo movement was kicking off, and it seemed like certainly there would be more people coming forward if what my friend personally witnessed was as creepy as it seemed to him.

Eventually we almost started to believe that maybe it hadn't been -- but, as we see now, his original read was almost certainly correct. It's just that Tyson's unique position of being both a masterful communicator and champion of the sciences and an exemplar of the value of diversity in our culture were somehow enough to shield him a bit longer than most of the creeps who have been outed over the last few years. But come on, people — if you like those things about him, the answer isn’t to protect him, it’s to promote the value of that diversity by finding more and varied voices in the sciences and giving them the platforms needed to be new, better champions. (Ironically, this is an effort he has been actively engaged in with his Star Talk media platform, but really, we don’t need him to make those kinds of efforts succeed.)

He even tried to pull a Louis CK with the screed he put out over the weekend: "I'm so famous and popular that all these women are constantly trying to hug me in public..."

Reaper81 wrote:

Doc,

He’s one of those people famous for having a degree and an opinion about things.

You may not know him by name but I am guessing you’ve at least seen or heard him speak if you frequent sites like GWJ.

He’s been a figure in geek pop culture for a few years with various memes, TV shows, and media appearances.

In some circles Tyson is seen as the heir to Sagan as someone trying to deliver science to people who do not have a strong background in science. For example Cosmos (Sagan) and the more recent rebooted Cosmos (Tyson).

That being said it certainly does not excuse either inappropriate behavior or assault type events.

My issue with NdT had more to do with what I felt was unnecessary attacks on Christianity in his reboot of Cosmos. I felt like Cosmos should be a celebration of science, not a tool against religion.

Since then, I’ve found his online persona to be really negative and douchey, and more of a troll than an evengelist.

This was the first I heard of his sexual harassment allegations. As others noted, this seems to be consistent with his behavior, in my opinion.

Jayhawker wrote:

My issue with NdT had more to do with what I felt was unnecessary attacks on Christianity in his reboot of Cosmos. I felt like Cosmos should be a celebration of science, not a tool against religion.

Since then, I’ve found his online persona to be really negative and douchey, and more of a troll than an evengelist.

This was the first I heard of his sexual harassment allegations. As others noted, this seems to be consistent with his behavior, in my opinion.

I have to say this mirrors my experience with him. I get that he champions Science but the way he constantly attacks any sort of faith is a real dick move. Like I am already reading or watching your Astrophysics material do you need to troll my faith the entire time? I am not burning science books claiming the world is 6k years old.

Seems like an entirely orthogonal discussion to the matter of him being accused of sexual misconduct, and one that has very little to do with feminism.

A person not respecting your religious beliefs (or more to the point in this case, the tendency of various religious institutions to impede scientific progress) does not make them any more or less likely to be guilty of being a creepy abuser of power and potential sexual predator.

zeroKFE wrote:

Seems like an entirely orthogonal discussion to the matter of him being accused of sexual misconduct, and one that has very little to do with feminism.

Which is true, though I feel that it is worth mentioning that the New Atheist/Skeptic/Rationalist/online atheism movement, which is one of the groups that propelled him to stardom, has a huge problem with sexism that they've dealt with very badly.

zeroKFE wrote:

A person not respecting your religious beliefs (or more to the point in this case, the tendency of various religious institutions to impede scientific progress) does not make them any more or less likely to be guilty of being a creepy abuser of power and potential sexual predator.

Though not specific to religious beliefs, I think that people who don’t respect others in one aspect are more likely to not respect them in others. Abuse of power is all about a fundamental lack of respect for others.

Gremlin wrote:
zeroKFE wrote:

Seems like an entirely orthogonal discussion to the matter of him being accused of sexual misconduct, and one that has very little to do with feminism.

Which is true, though I feel that it is worth mentioning that the New Atheist/Skeptic/Rationalist/online atheism movement, which is one of the groups that propelled him to stardom, has a huge problem with sexism that they've dealt with very badly.

I have a feeling that we will increasingly find that the problems addressing harassment/abuse/ assault will be related to [person] associated with [group].

Gremlin wrote:
zeroKFE wrote:

Seems like an entirely orthogonal discussion to the matter of him being accused of sexual misconduct, and one that has very little to do with feminism.

Which is true, though I feel that it is worth mentioning that the New Atheist/Skeptic/Rationalist/online atheism movement, which is one of the groups that propelled him to stardom, has a huge problem with sexism that they've dealt with very badly.

Are there any male dominant groups that don’t have a serious issue with sexism? I’m sure they exist but I just don’t know if any.

Docjoe wrote:
Gremlin wrote:
zeroKFE wrote:

Seems like an entirely orthogonal discussion to the matter of him being accused of sexual misconduct, and one that has very little to do with feminism.

Which is true, though I feel that it is worth mentioning that the New Atheist/Skeptic/Rationalist/online atheism movement, which is one of the groups that propelled him to stardom, has a huge problem with sexism that they've dealt with very badly.

Are there any male dominant groups that don’t have a serious issue with sexism? I’m sure they exist but I just don’t know if any.

The MensLib subreddit is pretty good.

I think it's a matter of when a group holds itself out as progressive and a rebellion against tradition, and then just winds up repeating the same old patterns. When something claims to be critical, and then is as completely lacking in the ability to turn that critical eye on themselves as the groups they claim have an inferior critical eye.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
zeroKFE wrote:

A person not respecting your religious beliefs (or more to the point in this case, the tendency of various religious institutions to impede scientific progress) does not make them any more or less likely to be guilty of being a creepy abuser of power and potential sexual predator.

Though not specific to religious beliefs, I think that people who don’t respect others in one aspect are more likely to not respect them in others. Abuse of power is all about a fundamental lack of respect for others.

Chumpy sums it up well.

Hobear wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Though not specific to religious beliefs, I think that people who don’t respect others in one aspect are more likely to not respect them in others. Abuse of power is all about a fundamental lack of respect for others.

Chumpy sums it up well.

Disagree.

If your religion sounds dumb, I'm going to think it's dumb, but I'll be no more likely to sexually abuse you.

What you're claiming is that if I tell you that my religion revolves around licking dogs' feet, you are either going to totally respect the Church of Smelly Dog Paws, or that you're therefore more likely to sexually harass me?

Both of those are absurd.

Jonman wrote:
Hobear wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Though not specific to religious beliefs, I think that people who don’t respect others in one aspect are more likely to not respect them in others. Abuse of power is all about a fundamental lack of respect for others.

Chumpy sums it up well.

Disagree.

If your religion sounds dumb, I'm going to think it's dumb, but I'll be no more likely to sexually abuse you.

What you're claiming is that if I tell you that my religion revolves around licking dogs' feet, you are either going to totally respect the Church of Smelly Dog Paws, or that you're therefore more likely to sexually harass me?

Both of those are absurd.

Eh you're right, can't conflate the two as I can know a jerk or the nicest person ever and they can both be sex creeps. My bad for allowing personal thoughts about someone and the ability to be a creep to be confused.

It is easier for me to believe the stories about people I don't respect due to their attitude towards others than the saint I hear rumors about. Anyone can be a creep is something I am learning through these stories.

I wrote that very poorly but I am listening to a conference call so brain no work.

Jonman wrote:
Hobear wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Though not specific to religious beliefs, I think that people who don’t respect others in one aspect are more likely to not respect them in others. Abuse of power is all about a fundamental lack of respect for others.

Chumpy sums it up well.

Disagree.

If your religion sounds dumb, I'm going to think it's dumb, but I'll be no more likely to sexually abuse you.

What you're claiming is that if I tell you that my religion revolves around licking dogs' feet, you are either going to totally respect the Church of Smelly Dog Paws, or that you're therefore more likely to sexually harass me?

Both of those are absurd.

I agree. Your straw man that bears only a passing resemblance to what I meant (and thought I said, but maybe not ) is absurd.

I didn’t say that you thought my religion was dumb; I said you didn’t respect my beliefs (which is not the same as agreeing or approving). If you think I’m stupid because I’m a Smelly Dog Pawman, it’s easier for you justify ignoring my opinions about non-religious things (like investment advice, or restaurants to eat at, or consent).

Obviously it’s not a one-to-one, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to suggest that people that have no respect for some of your opinions are more likely to have no respect for other opinions of yours.

Obviously it’s not a one-to-one, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to suggest that people that have no respect for some of your opinions are more likely to have no respect for other opinions of yours.

The stretch is the part where you connect having a ideological disagreement (or at least being rude about one), to being inclined towards sexual misconduct and other abuses of power.

Edit to add a rambling wall of text related the other train of thought here:

Docjoe wrote:
Gremlin wrote:
zeroKFE wrote:

Seems like an entirely orthogonal discussion to the matter of him being accused of sexual misconduct, and one that has very little to do with feminism.

Which is true, though I feel that it is worth mentioning that the New Atheist/Skeptic/Rationalist/online atheism movement, which is one of the groups that propelled him to stardom, has a huge problem with sexism that they've dealt with very badly.

Are there any male dominant groups that don’t have a serious issue with sexism? I’m sure they exist but I just don’t know if any.

This is the real take away here for me, particularly since I’ve been paying fairly close attention watching and waiting for movement on this one for several years now. In this case, there’s a whole bunch of institutions and communities that really seem to have not done a good job of doing the hard work to take care of marginalized and disempowered people in their midst and to promote adherence to standards of acceptable behavior by the people they venerate and give power to.

- At least based on what I saw googling the subject month after month since the first allegations surfaced, the media who loves his magnetic personality and powerful persona completely ignored it — there was effectively zero discussion, let alone investigation, even as many other figures had their misdeeds exposed to the light of day. (In retrospect, Buzzfeed at least was investigating, but man, it seems like there should have been more.)

- His schedule of talks, interviews, and podcasts continued unabated, surrounded by friends and colleagues who were actively engaged with the work of reforming our cultural attitudes about and response to sexual misconduct, but he never seemed to be challenged by any them about his own alleged behavior — even when a talk, interview, or podcast was specifically about the topic of promoting diversity in the sciences and making it a safer place for women and other marginalized people to thrive.

- The academic community who rely on people like him to translate the value of the work they do into a form understandable to the broader world certainly seemed to feel like that was worth more than the safety and wellbeing of the people who interact with him as a teacher, mentor, leader, and general source of inspiration. From the first hand observations of my astrophysicist friend throughout his time in the field (over a decade and a half), Tyson has always struck him as being excessively familiar and borderline inappropriate in his interactions with women at conferences, and I can’t believe he’s the only one who noticed it. Yet with the first allegations, very little was done, and the discussions of the subject (mostly led by female colleagues of my friend) generally petered out quickly.

Anyway, I’m not sure where I’m headed with this, except towards a reinforcement of resolve that we can’t let ourselves feel complacent in the trust that the groups we’ve chosen to be a part of are good enough to handle this stuff well. Even when we are well meaning, it’s just too easy to collectively let a collection of seemingly extenuating circumstances let us off the hook of doing the hard work to take care of the people around us.

Yes, in many ways Tyson is a singularly engaging and inspirational communicator whose efforts have contributed tons of value to both the scientific community and to our culture at large. But it can also be true that he’s f*cking creepy towards women, and doesn’t handle the responsibility incumbent with the position of power he’s in well, and has likely done untold and unknowable harm to that community both directly to the people he interacts with, and at large by potentially depriving the world the work those people might have done without his damaging and discouraging actions. And protecting him out of a desire to protect the good work he’s done only compounds the harm done by his bad actions, both directly to his victims, and by creating useful ammunition for the likes of climate change deniers and various other sorts of anti-science demagogues to tear down the good he has done.

We have to be better about this kind of thing. It’s good to have heroes, good to have charismatic leaders and communicators, but we have to make ourselves continue see them as human, continue to hold them accountable to the same standards, and accept that at times they will betray our trust and investment in them and be ready to move that investment on to more worthy people when they do.

I think there are two different definitions of respect being used here. I respect (tolerate) and understand people's right to religion, but I don't give any deference to their beliefs in my life. That doesn't mean I'm going to violate their right to have their bodily autonomy respected, which seems increasingly to be the case with Tyson.

My wife and I hosted the family at our house for Thanksgiving. When they wanted to say a premeal prayer, I told them to go right ahead while I take care of some things in the kitchen. I'm not going to stop you from doing that in my house, but I am under no obligation to play along. My son is watching.

This article resonated with me: https://www.thoughtco.com/meaning-o-...

peanut3141 wrote:

My wife and I hosted the family at our house for Thanksgiving. When they wanted to say a premeal prayer, I told them to go right ahead while I take care of some things in the kitchen. I'm not going to stop you from doing that in my house, but I am under no obligation to play along. My son is watching.

Personally, I think it is disrespectful to walk out on a prayer. It comes off as diva-ish, and it really sends a message that it is appropriate to other those that have different beliefs than you.

In our case, we let our daughter go to church with friends and allow family and friends to say grace in our presence. She brought home a friend from collage that was trying to be more strict in following kosher rules, and we accommodated her requests by not just “letting” her have a kosher meal, but worked to make the meals we ate together kosher.

The last thing I would want to do is to make family and guests feel like I didn’t respect their religion.

Agreed

Jayhawker wrote:
peanut3141 wrote:

My wife and I hosted the family at our house for Thanksgiving. When they wanted to say a premeal prayer, I told them to go right ahead while I take care of some things in the kitchen. I'm not going to stop you from doing that in my house, but I am under no obligation to play along. My son is watching.

Personally, I think it is disrespectful to walk out a prayer. It comes off as diva-ish, and it really sends a message that it is appropriate to other those that have different beliefs than you.

In our case, we let our daughter go to church with friends and allow family and friends to say grace in our presence. She brought home a friend from collage that was trying to be more strict in following kosher rules, and we accommodated her requests by not just “letting” her have a kosher meal, but worked to make the meals we ate together kosher.

The last thing I would want to do is to make family and guests feel like I didn’t respect their religion.

There's walking out and just not participating.
I also try to accommodate for guests but there are things I will and will not do based on situation.

Well, I can sit in silence for a moment before a meal, and let my guests say grace.

Jayhawker wrote:
peanut3141 wrote:

My wife and I hosted the family at our house for Thanksgiving. When they wanted to say a premeal prayer, I told them to go right ahead while I take care of some things in the kitchen. I'm not going to stop you from doing that in my house, but I am under no obligation to play along. My son is watching.

Personally, I think it is disrespectful to walk out a prayer. It comes off as diva-ish, and it really sends a message that it is appropriate to other those that have different beliefs than you.

In our case, we let our daughter go to church with friends and allow family and friends to say grace in our presence. She brought home a friend from collage that was trying to be more strict in following kosher rules, and we accommodated her requests by not just “letting” her have a kosher meal, but worked to make the meals we ate together kosher.

The last thing I would want to do is to make family and guests feel like I didn’t respect their religion.

See, that's the crux of the issue. You seem to think I have to participate in their religious customs to show respect (deference). I think that allowing them to practice their religion in my home is plenty respectful (tolerant).

I did not walk out. They attempted to recruit me into a prayer while I was in a kitchen. That's not going to happen. It is not divaish to choose to not participate. I spent decades of my life pretending to believe something because it was expected of me. I do not owe my family religious charades any more than a woman owed Tyson a view of her Pluto tattoo.

Edit:
Phone to Pluto. Phone posting strikes again.

Jayhawker wrote:

Well, I can sit in silence for a moment before a meal, and let my guests say grace.

Respect is a two way street. This is family. They've known I'm not a believer for over a decade now. I don't think it's respectful of my position to ask me to participate. But that's exactly what they want, not just mere presence. If I'm present, but refuse to hold hands in a circle, and say "Amen" at the end or lead the prayer because it's my home after all, I get disapproving looks. I'm not playing that game.

Did you read the article I linked? That incremental, escalating, goalpost moving redefinition of respect is exactly my experience and I'm not having it.

I'm sorry for the mini-derail, I just wanted to point out that people can mean very different things by "respect" (as we've amply demonstrated) and that is what appeared to be going on here.

Edit:
Here's an interesting thought experiment. In this situation, who is asking the other to act against their beliefs? Now compare to the kosher meal situation. Again, who would be asking the other to go against their beliefs?

Jayhawker wrote:

Personally, I think it is disrespectful to walk out a prayer. It comes off as diva-ish, and it really sends a message that it is appropriate to other those that have different beliefs than you.

And it's not diva-ish to insist that everyone drop what they're doing and pay attention to you while you pray? And it's not othering to have a group prayer where it's extremely obvious who's not praying?

Seriously. It's 2018. The odds are pretty decent that any room you're in is going to have someone who has different religious beliefs than you do or has no religious beliefs.

Don't make them feel uncomfortable because you can't pray quietly and unobtrusively or you feel compelled to make your prayer the center of attention.

peanut3141 wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

Well, I can sit in silence for a moment before a meal, and let my guests say grace.

Respect is a two way street. This is family. They've known I'm not a believer for over a decade now. I don't think it's respectful of my position to ask me to participate. But that's exactly what they want, not just mere presence. If I'm present, but refuse to hold hands in a circle, and say "Amen" at the end or lead the prayer because it's my home after all, I get disapproving looks. I'm not playing that game.

Did you read the article I linked? That incremental, escalating, goalpost moving redefinition of respect is exactly my experience and I'm not having it.

I'm sorry for the mini-derail, I just wanted to point out that people can mean very different things by "respect" (as we've amply demonstrated) and that is what appeared to be going on here.

Edit:
Here's an interesting thought experiment. In this situation, who is asking the other to act against their beliefs? Now compare to the kosher meal situation. Again, who would be asking the other to go against their beliefs?

I read the article. I decided to be nice and not trash it. But if you insist, it seems like a nice guide for how to be an atheist asshole. And personally, we have enough of those already.

I think the key is, I am not thinking about it in terms of beliefs. I think about it in terms of graciousness to guests. That might mean gluten-free for one of our friends. That might mean vegetarian options for others. And for some, it means participating in grace. In the end, the result is a more of a feeling that we are all in this world together, and more understanding.

Are you saying that if you had the opportunity to have Jimmy Carter to your house for dinner, you would walk out if he wanted to say grace? What are you accomplishing?

Jayhawker wrote:

I read the article. I decided to be nice and not trash it. But if you insist, it seems like a nice guide for how to be an atheist asshole. And personally, we have enough of those already.

I think the key is, I am not thinking about it in terms of beliefs. I think about it in terms of graciousness to guests. That might mean gluten-free for one of our friends. That might mean vegetarian options for others. And for some, it means participating in grace. In the end, the result is a more of a feeling that we are all in this world together, and more understanding.

Are you saying that if you had the opportunity to have Jimmy Carter to your house for dinner, you would walk out if he wanted to say grace? What are you accomplishing?

If Jimmy Carter is at my house, I'll accommodate his dietary restrictions to the best of my ability. If he wishes to pray, he's quite welcome to. If he asks me to participate, I'll decline. Ya know, exactly what I did at Thanksgiving. You insist on strawmanning my actions as a petulant walk out.

I mean, I'm not surprised at what you're doing, this isn't my first rodeo. I had just hoped for better here.