Tags
Atheism, Bullying, Feminism, Harassment, Justin Vacula, Sexism, Women
So Justin Vacula wrote a post last Sunday responding to the criticisms of his earlier Facebook post. Other people have already responded to the majority of his claims, but I want to comment on one particular sentence (emphasis added):
It seems extremely obvious to me that people should consider the results of their actions before they make them and then act appropriately depending on various factors including their coping skills, past experiences, support systems, financial stability, etc. This line of reasoning is quite uncontroversial in some areas of the secular community when people consider ‘coming out’ as an atheist; many will say persons should not come out if they will have to face dire consequences for doing so. People who give this advice are almost never told they are ‘blaming the victim’ or ‘giving a warrant for bullies,’ but when the topic is changed to people who write on the internet — and often engage in vitriolic writing — all bets are off for some reason.
Two things. One, if people haven’t been saying it yet, then I’ll say it here: If you are a woman writing about atheism (or anything else, really) on the internet, expect abuse. Expect lots of abuse from people like Justin Vacula, or worse. Expect rape threats, death threats, and obsessive stalkers. Expect the worst humanity has to offer directed right at you, because it will happen. And if you don’t think you can handle it, you should probably take some precautions. Consider disabling comments on your blog, consider not making your email account public knowledge, only friend people that you know and trust on Facebook, etc. If these things don’t work, seriously consider not writing online. That’s the choice that Jen McCreight had to make a few months ago when she decided to take an indefinite leave from blogging. That’s the choice that many women bloggers have to make every day. If given the choice between sharing your opinions online and physical or mental health, sometimes it’s necessary to step back a bit.
However, the second point I want to make is that it shouldn’t be this way. People shouldn’t have to choose between blogging and their wellbeing. When it comes to deciding when to come out as an atheist, yes the common advice given is to weigh the consequences of that action, but at the same time the atheist community is working hard to make coming out easier. We’re fighting all sorts of battles so that future generations won’t have to worry about the consequences of coming out, because there won’t be any. Likewise, feminists are fighting to make it easier to be a woman, both on the internet and in real life.
The problem is that Vacula and his allies are the ones making blogging difficult. They’re the people we’re fighting against to make being on the internet easier for women. For him to claim a comparison between writing on the internet and coming out as an atheist is to deny the malicious role he has had. He and others like him are stalking, harassing, and otherwise attempting to silence the voices of women in this movement. In his blog post, Vacula simply appears concerned for the wellbeing of women bloggers in this movement. However, he has done nothing to make it easier for women bloggers, and has been complicit in their suffering.
In his post, Vacula treats online harassment and sexism as an inevitable consequence of blogging, instead of a problem that we should fix. He completely ignores his own role in creating and maintaining a culture of hatred that allows the harassment to occur. If he cared at all about women, he would be working to minimize the amount of vitriol they have to face, instead of proposing that the only solution to women getting harassed while blogging is for women to stop blogging. That’s not a solution, and Vacula obviously doesn’t care about women.
Soooooooo… you start a blog post with a massive personal attack as the headline, then complain about civility and trolling on the Internet…At this point I can’t tell if this is a joke or not.
I wasn’t complaining about civility and trolling, I was complaining about harassment and obsessive stalking. If you’re implying that saying Vacula “Doesn’t care about women” is anything on par with what people like Surly Amy and Ophelia Benson have to deal with, then I don’t see how a civil discussion with you is possible.
What you wrote: “However, the second point I want to make is that it shouldn’t be this way. People shouldn’t have to choose between blogging and their wellbeing.”
What JV wrote: “The nastiness is, of course, unfortunate. We can work to change this nastiness and hope that people will be nice, but this just isn’t the case and likely won’t be in the near future.”
I’m not seeing a whole lot of daylight between these two positions, although he seems somewhat more fatalistic about the problem than you do. At any rate, I’d be interested in hearing what “Vacula and his allies” ought to be doing to “make it easier for women bloggers” going forward.
One throwaway sentence does not a position make. In this case, Vacula’s actions speak far more loudly than his words. And as for what he and his allies could be doing for women bloggers, I would think not harassing them would be a good start.
You seem to take it as a given that he is guilty of ongoing harassment. Typically, bloggers provide links when levelling such serious accusations.
What I said was that Vacula is guilty of “creating and maintaining a culture of hatred that allows the harassment to occur,” not that he was guilty of actually harassing people himself. However, you’re right in that I didn’t do enough to separate Vacula’s actions from the actions of others who do far more objectionable things. So to make it perfectly clear, I don’t believe Vacula has ever harassed anybody. What he actually did was write several posts, including but not limited to the one on AVFM, and refuse to call out sexism and bigotry on those posts and elsewhere. If he actually cared about women bloggers, he would take a page out of Rebecca Watson’s playbook and tell people making sexist statements, “Guys, don’t do that.” I think it’s telling that he’s never (at least to my knowledge) issued a formal call for civility, or discouraged the use of name calling like “Rebecca Twatson.”
The problem is that this isn’t just feminism, this is hate in and of itself. I would not want FTB or Rebecca Watson to be the defender of myself as I disagree wholeheartedly with some of the things they say, not just some of their feminist stances but their vitriol and attacks against anyone who does not toe the line.
This is summed up in a conversation I saw previously and have seen echoed many times by those who support Rebecca Watson, FTB, etc:
James MacDonald was saying he didn’t condone the actions and attacks by FTB (and sometimes skepchick) and responded:
James MacDonald: How are you defining “anti-feminist”? Opposing a particularly virulent brand of feminism is not misogyny.
The response was, as expected, an attack:
Amanda Marcotte: Anyone who thinks women not wanting to be sexually harassed are “virulent” is a misogynist.
He obviously did not imply or state that… but let’s continue:
James MacDonald: That isn’t what is being opposed. FtB and Skepchick represent more than just opposition to sexual harassment. I can oppose sexual harassment and find their general brand of feminism to be virulent and counter-productive.
Amanda Marcotte: Since their “brand” is “opposing sexual harassment”, not really, no. Unless you’re feeble.
James MacDonald: So you think I have to agree with everything they stand for if I oppose sexual harassment? That’s absurd.
As Amanda Marcotte says: All they’ve said is they’re against sexual harassment. So yes, if you disagree, then uh, you’re for it.
Which is incredible dissembling.
Then again your stance: “Justin Vacula is responsible because others have written negative things and he has not said “Do not do that”, thus he does not care about women.” while possibly seeming as if it makes sense to yourself, is not very rational. I despise how activism is polluted to the point that nobody can be an activist for their own cause without being forced to protect others causes at the risk of being branded say… a misogynist, a racist, a horrible person, bilbo baggins, what have you.
If anyone that does not drop their own goals and desires to protect 100% certain individuals or certain causes is labelled a traitor of that cause then the word traitor is going to become pretty watered down, fast.
Obviously I can’t speak for Amanda Marcotte. And for the record, I don’t believe in “sides.” I believe in ideas and in individuals, and when certain individuals have ideas that I find objectionable, I criticize them for it.
Justin Vacula constantly hangs out in places like the slymepit, and has posted to AVFM. If you go to either of those places, you will see all sorts of hatred and bigotry. Vacula has certainly seen it too. If he objects to that sort of vitriol, he should say so, and make it clear that he won’t tolerate it in places like his blog. He hasn’t done so, which leads me to believe he supports, or at least condones, such offensive statements.
Avery Thompson said:
November 4, 2012 at 1:33 pm
I wasn’t complaining about civility and trolling, I was complaining about harassment and obsessive stalking. If you’re implying that saying Vacula “Doesn’t care about women” is anything on par with what people like Surly Amy and Ophelia Benson have to deal with, then I don’t see how a civil discussion with you is possible.
Oh yeah. Sulky Amy making a big stink out of being “harassed” out of TAM – and it turns out she was crying about Harriet Hall’s t-shirt. As for Ophelia… where does one even begin? I guess comparing TAM to Nazi Germany was the money shot for many (which she now just point blank denies, but it’s all documented).
Many of us wish we only had their kinds of problems to deal with. It is all absurd black comedy – except it’s not really funny because their nonsense attempts to destroy individuals that point it out as such.
See? These are the sorts of dishonest and childish attacks that Vacula should condemn. Instead he tolerates them, which makes it appear as though he agrees with them. These people continue to spread lies and smears about women bloggers, making it harder for them to blog or even exist on the internet.
@Avery Thompson:
“If he actually cared about women bloggers, he would take a page out of Rebecca Watson’s playbook and tell people making sexist statements, “Guys, don’t do that.””
Actually, that’s an extremely sexist way to put it. Women bloggers can face a great deal of sexism from other women. I get gendered slurs, sexual shaming, sexist assumptions/accusations (“You’re just jealous of X prettier blogger!” “You’re just trying to hold onto a man!” “Camwhore!” “The equivalent of sucking dick for money.”) and accusations skating the edge of actionably libelous (“We all know you abuse your kids.”). I’ve had a blog named after me “girlhateswhat” on tumblr, where my face, with bloody nose and black eye, has been photoshopped into an old 60s June Cleaver-esque magazine ad. A bunch of people have taken to calling me “girlwritestwat”. The creator of “girlhateswhat” makes it a point to leave an abusive comment whenever s/he sees me comment in non MRM spaces.
Oddly enough, most of the people who do these things are feminists, and women. A lot of the criticism of Watson, McReight and others has come from women, as well.
So when you say Vacula should make a “guys, don’t do that,” statement, you’re coming off as sexist. I suppose I can grant that *perhaps* you’re using “guys” in a unisex way, but considering the original phrase in its original context was not using “guys” in that way, I suspect not.
This whole post reeks of “poor, fragile women need male leaders to protect them.” I find it kind of insulting to assume that women suffer more crap online than men do when they take an unpopular position, that they are more likely to get threats or threatening language thrown their way, more likely to be trolled. It certainly seems they’re more likely to complain about it, but that doesn’t mean that it happens to them more.
You might also want to consider how willing Vacula is to go out of his way to help women after a group representing the collective women got him fired from a prestigious position for being critical of a few specific women, and another allegedly started posting his parents’ contact info online and encouraging people to harass them.
If women like McReight, Watson, Benson and others want to be leaders/authorities in the atheist community, they need to expect criticism, disagreement and hostility. Look at what Obama gets from the religious right, and look at what Romney gets from feminists and other progressive groups. It seems like no one’s demanding critics pull punches or temper their language when it comes to people in leadership positions, unless they’re women *and* meet the approval of feminists.
I also wonder if you realize how disturbing it is to see people who wish to be seen as leaders and authorities to demand protection or immunity from criticism. Last time I checked, allowing people to be in positions of legal, political or moral authority while making it unacceptable to lambaste them, was a common aspect of totalitarian regimes and institutions. Not so great an idea, IMO.
Obviously I don’t condone stupid shit other people say against you. I certainly object to the use of violent imagery. I certainly disagree with a lot of your positions, but I can do so civilly, and I expect others to do the same.
I used the phrase, “Guys, don’t do that” because that’s how it was originally used. That’s it. I was not implying that only men harass women online. I specifically said that he would tell that to “people making sexist statements,” not “men making sexist statements.” I used the word “guys” only in a rhetorical sense.
“This whole post reeks of ‘poor, fragile women need male leaders to protect them.’” That’s bullshit. Women do get more crap then men do on the internet. And I find it weird that you accuse me of sexism in one breath and then in the next say, “It certainly seems [women a]re more likely to complain about it,” I guess because women are just whinier then men?
There’s a distinction between criticism and abuse. There’s a difference between attacking a person’s actions and beliefs, and attacking that person directly. I’m reasonably certain that McCreight (notice the spelling), Watson, Benson, etc. are all for criticism of ideas. What they (and I) are against is abuse and harassment, or as you put it, hostility. I agree that they should expect hostility, but that doesn’t make the hostility ok. And are you seriously pointing to political discourse as a model dialogue?
I don’t demand that our leaders are immune from criticism. I think reasoned criticism is healthy for everyone involved. But when that criticism crosses the line into harassment and personal attacks, then we should oppose it. That’s something that Vacula hasn’t done.
“Justin Vacula constantly hangs out in places like the slymepit, and has posted to AVFM. If you go to either of those places, you will see all sorts of hatred and bigotry.”
Cannot speak to AVfM, since I’ve never read it, but as a long-time reader of the ‘Pit, what I’m seeing there isn’t bigotry. There is hatred aplenty, to be sure, but that is just as true at the Atheism Plus forums and plenty of “freethought” blog sites. Hatred breeds hatred, and telling people to sodomize themselves with porcupines almost never goes over well.
Bigotry is when you hate someone for reasons that have nothing to do with your personal experience and interactions with them. That’s not what’s happening here.
Oh hey, so I went on the slymepit just now, and what was one of the first things I see?
This: http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=73&start=24800#p26640
“[talking about PZ Myers, Jen McCreight, Greta Christina, Richard Carrier, and someone else I couldn't identify]
I know who horseface, beardy, and 65-year-old-with-glasses-that-looks-like-someone’s-doing-her-up-the-council are, but who are tweedlecunt and tweedleprick?”
So you may think this behavior is perfectly fine, but I don’t. This is what I was talking about. Don’t tell me that Vacula isn’t totally ok with this, because judging by his lack of action, he finds this sort of thing completely acceptable.
According to Justin’s testimony he was badly (criminally?) treated by woman ‘S’. What do you have to say to woman ‘S’? Or are you one to criticise only the other side of the divide?
Look who’s being all passive-aggressive! But seriously, I have no idea what you’re talking about. And quite frankly, I’m done with people making excuses for Vacula’s behavior.