Online Othering: The Other Side

One opportunity I bitterly regret passing up last year was the offer to contribute a chapter (with Mark Carrigan) to this engrossing and influential book…

OnlineOthering_cover.png

The blurb for Online Othering reads as follows:

This book explores the discrimination encountered and propagated by individuals in online environments. The editors develop the concept of ‘online othering’ as a tool through which to analyse and make sense of the myriad toxic and harmful behaviours which are being created through, or perpetuated via, the use of communication-technologies such as the internet, social media, and ‘the internet of things’. The book problematises the dichotomy assumed between real and virtual spaces by exploring the construction of online abuse, victims’ experiences, resistance to online othering, and the policing of interpersonal cyber-crime. The relationship between various socio-political institutions and experiences of online hate speech are also explored.

I thoroughly recommend you get hold of a copy, by hook or by crook. (I am also delighted that one of the editors of Online Othering, Dr. Karen Lumsden, took up an Assistant Professor in Criminology position here at the University of Nottingham at the start of the week. Welcome to Nottingham, Karen!)

Mark and I had planned to submit a chapter on the “SJW vs anti-SJW” culture wars but we were both swamped with other commitments at the time and just couldn’t deliver. A year on, however, and after reading Online Othering in its entirety on a recent flight to the US, I think I’d take a slightly different, and somewhat less strident, tack if I were writing a chapter for the book right now. There’s a whole other side to othering that I’d like to explore.

The term “othering” is helpfully defined by Karen and her co-author/co-editor Dr. Emily Harmer in Chapter 1 as follows,

The practices and processes through which the ‘outsider’ is constructed are encapsulated via the notion of ‘othering’. According to Lister, othering is a ‘process of differentiation and demarcation, by which the line is drawn between “us” and “them” – between the more and the less powerful – and through which social distance is established and maintained’ [Lister, R. (2004). Poverty. Cambridge: Polity Press, p. 101]. It involves constructions of the self or ‘in-group’, and the other or ‘out-group’, through identification of what the former has and what the latter lacks in relation to the former [Brons, L. (2015). Othering, an analysis. Transcience, 6(1), 69 90]. It is the means of defining into existence a group perceived to be ‘inferior’ [Schwalbe, M., et al. (2000). Generic processes in reproduction of inequality: An interactionist analysis. Social Forces, 79(2), 419–452.]

“The Other” is subsequently placed in the context of Simone de Beauvoir‘s “The Second Sex”,

 [Woman] is defined and differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her; she is the incidental, the inessential as opposed to the essential. He is the Subject, he is the Absolute – she is the Other. [De Beauvoir, S. (1976 [1949]). The Second Sex. Paris: Gallimard.]

but de Beauvoir herself substanitally broadened that definition later (p.52) in The Second Sex

No group ever sets itself up as the One without at once setting up the Other over against itself … [T]o the native of a country all who inhabit other countries are ‘foreigners’; Jews are ‘different’ for the anti-Semite, Negroes are ‘inferior’ for American racists, aborigines are ‘natives’ for colonists, proletarians are the ‘lower class’ for the privileged.

“Online Othering: Exploring Digital Discrimination and Violence on the Web” focuses on othering perpetrated by a variety of right-leaning and (far-)right wing, reactionary, and conservative groups, viz. the alt-right, Mens’ Rights Activists (MRAs), anti-feminists, anti-trans-rights pundits, white nationalists/supermacists, and anti-social-justice warriors. The title of Chapter 4 tells you all you need to know about the extent of the sickening online abuse* discussed in the book: ‘ “I Want to Kill You in Front of Your Children” Is Not a Threat. It’s an Expression of a Desire’: Discourses of Online Abuse, Trolling and Violence on r/MensRights’

As outlined in the excerpts from the book above, however, “othering” is a much broader concept and involves social settings where those outside our “tribe” can be identified and discriminated against. Some who would traditionally describe themselves as “of the left” (or at least left-leaning) are more than capable of online othering, even when it is entirely counter-productive and ultimately slows progress in furthering diversity and equality.  At best, there’s an exceptionally irksome tendency towards holier-than-thou “purity testing” (and the associated “People’s Front of Judea” in-fighting and backbiting); at worst, others are demonised and/or cast out simply because they’re not sufficiently well-aligned with the values of our tribe. Most depressingly, even when “The Other” recognises and admits to their mistakes, this is not enough. They still have to be avoided like the plague.

Here’s a topical example of what I have in mind:

Great, one might think. A careful and nuanced admission from an ideological opponent that his political party is enabling white supremacy; a clear attack on Trump from behind enemy lines. What could be better? Isn’t this to be loudly applauded? Shouldn’t Senator McCollister receive plaudits from “our side” for calling out the far-from-covert racism of Mr. Trump and his allies?

Scroll down that thread and you’ll find those who are indeed willing to give credit where it’s due, who get beyond the tribalism, and who realise that if we want to make real progress then we have to be willing to accept that those with whom we have political, religious, and/or ideological differences are not invariably evil incarnate.

But then you also find those who will never see Senator McCollister (and, indeed, all Republicans) as anything other than The Other…

This type of ideological puritanism is both bloody exhausting and worse than useless. What does it get us, other than a few more “likes” or “retweets” from similarly-minded members of our tribe? To make real progress, and as Dave Fowler expressed so well in a previous post, occasionally we need to break the rules of the game and step outside the conventions of our tribe.

I’m writing this post from Castleblaney in Co. Monaghan, where I’m on holiday with my son, and which is very close to where I grew up in the seventies and eighties — a time of H-blocks, hunger strikes, Bobby Sands fervour, and regular bombings in the North and the mainland. Monaghan is a border county and also rather Republican — albeit in a rather different sense than for our US cousins — in its outlook. The Northern Ireland peace process, culminating in the Good Friday Agreement, did not come about by one side othering the other; those deeply polarised, sectarian divisions were not bridged by the type of tribal mentality that underpins modern online political (and apolitical) debate. It was instead a triumph of compromise, and of recognising the humanity of The Other.


* As the editors deftly point out in their introduction, the offline and the online are, of course, not disconnected, orthogonal spheres of activity: “Moreover, despite the inclusion of the term ‘online ’, we, like others, believe it is important to acknowledge that these behaviours do not occur in a ‘virtual vacuum’—they are part and parcel of everyday life and have real consequences in what some have chosen to call the ‘real’ (versus the ‘virtual’) world. We must throw out the well-worn dichotomies of ‘online versus offline’, and ‘virtual world’ versus ‘real world’, and instead acknowledge the interconnected and fluid nature of our everyday use of information and communication technologies.”

“And now behold a feast befitting famine…”

When it comes to thrash, death, grindcore, and the heavier end of the spectrum, I tend to like my metal crunchy, guttural, and driven by huge sludgy riffs. There is nothing that gets my pulse racing more than a massive riff propelled by pummelling double bass drums, with vocals dredged up from the Seven Circles [1]. If the lyrics have a social conscience and/or political bent, all the better.

So when Chris Morley, a final year PhD student researcher here in the School of Physics & Astronomy — and fellow metal fan, accomplished musician, and quantum technologist — sent me a link to the new song he’s recorded with Beyond Grace, I was, let’s say, just a tad enthusiastic about the track.

Strap yourselves in. I’ll see you again in 4 mins and 56 seconds…

I f**king love that track. [2] There aren’t too many other bands (metal or otherwise), with the notable exception of Napalm Death [3], who would write a song that lambasts the breathtakingly simplistic fantasy of trickle-down economics. (And kick off by sampling Obama’s critique of that fantasy.)

As Beyond Grace themselves explain over at MetalSucks,

In The Arabian Nights there’s a story where a beggar is taken in by a rich man and served an imaginary meal and, after playing along with the illusion, is ultimately rewarded with a life of luxury and opulence.

“Of course, in the real world, this isn’t what happens. We wait and we wait, but nothing changes. We’re just told to do more with less, to keep our mouths shut, even as those upstream do their best to dam the river so that all that reaches us is the merest trickle of the wealth they’ve hoarded.”

And not only do Beyond Grace raise awareness, they put their money where their collective mouth is. They’re donating all the proceeds from the single to local food banks. You can purchase the track here, for however much or little you would like to donate. Go get it now. As MetalSucks put it, “killer music, killer ethos.” ‘Nuff said.

OK, are you ready? Growl like you’ve never growled before. Everyone. On 4.

1, 2, 3, fouuuuuuurggghhhhh…

AND NOW BEHOLD A FEAST BEFITTING FAMINE


[1] On other occasions, Abba, Zappa, or just about anything in between — except, of course, the aural enema that is country – are what I need for my musical fix. (And, if you, like me, have ever idly wondered what Abba-influenced death metallers might sound like …

A big thank you to my friend, and erstwhile colleague at Nottingham, Adam Sweetman, for introducing me to the majesty of The Night Flight Orchestra.

[2] Back in the days when I used to waste a lot of time “debating” pointlessly online, aggrieved anti-social-justice warriors often whined at me about “self-censoring” expletives in this way. (I kid you not. They really are exceptionally fragile individuals.) Let’s just say that it’s my homage to Kerrang! magazine, which I read voraciously as a teenager. I also think that partially “redacting” the word like that actually strengthens, rather than lessens, the written impact of the expletive.

[3] As I said to Chris, I hear echoes of Barney and the boys in “Barmecide Feast”.  

The Manosphere mangles Science 101. For the mth time.

I definitely need my traditional trigger warning for this one…

If you find that you are unable to respond to criticism of sexism and misogyny without randomly arranging terms such as SJW, white knight, cuck, kill yourself, bitch, whore, rape, professional victims, PC gone mad, First Amendment, feminazi, and/or fuck (or other assorted expletives) into grammatically dubious and arbitrarily capitalised boilerplate then you may find the following post both intellectually and emotionally challenging. A strong and potentially damaging kneejerk response or, indeed, extreme overreaction may result.

You have been warned.

Shortly after my previous post was uploaded, an e-mail popped into my inbox pointing me towards an especially timely and instructive example of exactly the effect I’d discussed there: the dismissal of scientific evidence and counter-arguments in favour of a cherished ideology and deeply-held worldview. No amount of data, peer-reviewed literature, reasoned debate, or academic engagement seems to be capable of convincing this particular type of individual to think more scientifically, i.e. to assess all of the available information, set aside their biases (as much as possible), and to reach a conclusion based on the entirety of the evidence in front of them.

I am, of course, talking about the Manospherian.

Writing for VDare.com, “Lance Welton” — pseudoynms are popular in the Manosphere [1] — penned/pixeled an overwrought and hysterical hatchet job, as is his [2] wont, on Dr. Jess Wade. Jess has featured before at this blog, and, indeed, visited the School of Physics and Astronomy at Nottingham last November to give us an extremely well-received, informative and entertaining lecture. She’s an inspiration for so many scientists, for reasons discussed in this Guardian article. (I have my suspicions that “Lance” is not a regular Guardian reader. Here’s a Nature article on Jess instead.)

“Lance”‘s piece is entitled Jess Wade—Another Minority Social Justice Warrior Pushing Science Into New Dark Age.  He clearly has a particularly buzzy bee in his bonnet about social justice warriors (SJWs), and needs to vent his spleen as regularly as possible. (“Lance” would just love my t-shirt.) What “Lance”, in line with all his other overwrought fellow Manospheroids, fails to grasp is that he’s just as much an SJW as those he critiques; it’s just that he espouses a different form of social justice. And anyone who writes like “Lance” is most definitely a keyboard warrior of the first degree. (Those shirts are available here, “Lance”, in case you’re interested…)

“Lance”, in keeping with the long-standing tradition of Manospherian martydom, cherry-picks his citations to present a thoroughly skewed, and, of course, entirely ideologically-driven, picture of the literature on gender differences.  Instead of bending over backwards to consider the depth and breadth of the evidence for and against his case, “Lance” instead plays to his audience’s, and his own, deeply rooted prejudices in an argument-free argumentum ad hominem. How very scientific.

At the outset of his rant about Dr. Wade, “Lance” links us to one of his previous diatribes on how science is entering a DARK AGE because the data frustratingly fail to live up to his prejudices. (If nothing else, “Lance” is consistent in his biases.) Imagine my complete lack of surprise to find Alessandro Strumia‘s name pop up in the middle of “Mr. Welton’s” pearl-clutching piece. (His yawnsome reference to Galileo also made me smile. It’s not enough to wear the mantle, “Lance”…) Alessandro’s thoroughly flawed “citations are a direct measure of IQ” is about as good an example of modern-day Cargo Cult science as one would hope to find: it looks really sciencey, with lots of graphs and numbers and statistics. And maths stuff. And fitting. And correlations. And yet the methodology is pseudoscientific to its core. That “Lance” would unblinkingly cite Strumia, without taking a nanosecond to consider and/or address any of the many counter arguments, is certainly in keeping with the anti-science norms of the Manosphere.

To be fair to Alessandro — with whom I’ve debated at length (see the comments under this and this post) — I don’t think he’d be entirely comfortable to know that he was the poster child for a website like VDare.com. For the reasons outlined in my previous post (and elsewhere), I dislike demonising individuals. Even “Lance” might possibly rise out of his hatred one day. But it’ll take a lot more than just the data and evidence to do that.


[1] Due to the ever-present FEMINAZI GYNOCRACY that seeks to return us all to the DARK AGES, those who bravely stand up to speak THE TRUTH cannot reveal their identity. Or something.

[2] My apologies for the assumption of “Lance”‘s gender. I hope that they won’t be too offended if I got it wrong. I’m aware that the Manospherians are an exceptionally fragile bunch.

 

“We don’t need no education…”

(…or Why It Sometimes Might Be Better For Us Academics to Shut The F**k Up Occasionally.)

Boost Public Engagement to Beat Pseudoscience, says Jim Al-Khalili” goes the headline on p.19 of this week’s Times Higher Education, my traditional Saturday teatime read. The brief article, a summary of points Jim made during his talk at the Young Universities Summit, continues…

Universities must provide more opportunities for academics to engage with the public or risk allowing pseudoscience to “fill the vacuum”, according to Jim Al-Khalili.

Prof. Al-Khalili is an exceptionally talented and wonderfully engaging science communicator. I enjoy, and very regularly recommend (to students and science enthusiasts of all stripes), his books and his TV programmes. But the idea that education and academic engagement are enough to counter pseudoscience is, at the very best, misleading and, at worst, a dangerous and counter-productive message to propagate.

The academic mantra of “education, education, education” as the unqualified panacea for every socioeconomic ill, although comforting, is almost always a much too simplistic — and, for some who don’t share our ideological leanings, irritatingly condescending — approach. I’ve written enthusiastically before about Tom Nichols’ powerful “The Death of Expertise”, and I’ve lost count of the number of times that I’ve referred to David McRaney’s The Backfire Effect in previous posts and articles I’ve written. It does no harm to quote McRaney one more time…

The last time you got into, or sat on the sidelines of, an argument online with someone who thought they knew all there was to know about health care reform, gun control, gay marriage, climate change, sex education, the drug war, Joss Whedon or whether or not 0.9999 repeated to infinity was equal to one – how did it go?

Did you teach the other party a valuable lesson? Did they thank you for edifying them on the intricacies of the issue after cursing their heretofore ignorance, doffing their virtual hat as they parted from the keyboard a better person?

Perhaps you’ve been more fortunate than McRaney (and me.) But somehow I doubt it.

As just one example from McRaney’s list, there is strong and consistent evidence that, in the U.S., Democrats are much more inclined to accept the evidence for anthropogenic climate change than Republicans. That’s bad enough, but the problem of political skew in motivated rejection of science is much broader. A very similar and very distinct right-left asymmetry exists across the board, as discussed in Lewandowsky and Oberauer’s influential paper, Motivated Rejection Of Science. I’ll quote from their abstract, where they make the same argument as McRaney but in rather more academic, though no less compelling, terms [1]:

Rejection of scientific findings is mostly driven by motivated cognition: People tend to reject findings that threaten their core beliefs or worldview. At present, rejection of scientific findings by the U.S. public is more prevalent on the political right than the left. Yet the cognitive mechanisms driving rejection of science, such as the superficial processing of evidence toward the desired interpretation, are found regardless of political orientation. General education and scientific literacy do not mitigate rejection of science but, rather, increase the polarization of opinions along partisan lines.

Let me repeat and bolden that last line for emphasis. It’s exceptionally important.


General education and scientific literacy do not mitigate rejection of science but, rather, increase the polarization of opinions along partisan lines.


If we blithely assume that the rejection of well-accepted scientific findings — and the potential subsequent descent into the cosy embrace of pseudoscience — is simply a matter of a lack of education and engagement, we fail to recognise the complex and multi-facetted sociology and psychology at play here. Yes, we academics need to get out there and talk about the research we and others do — and I’m rather keen on doing this myself (as discussed here, here, and here) — but let’s not make the mistake that there’s always a willing audience waiting with bated breath for the experts to come and correct them on what they’re getting wrong.

I spend a lot of time on public engagement, both online and off — although not, admittedly, as much as Jim — and I’ve encountered the “motivated rejection” effect time and time again over the years. Here’s just one example of what I mean — a comment posted under the most recent Computerphile video I did with Sean Riley:

ZeroCred

The “zero credibility” comment stems not from the science presented in the video but from a reaction to my particular ideological and political leanings. For reasons I’ve discussed at length previously, I’ve been labelled as an “SJW” — a badge I’m happy to wear with quite some pride. (If you’ve not encountered the SJW perjorative previously, lucky you. Here’s a primer.) Because of my SJW leanings, the science I present, regardless of its accuracy (and level of supporting evidence/research), is immediately rejected by a subset of aggrieved individuals who do not share my political outlook. They outright dismiss the credibility or validity of the science not on the basis of the content or the strength of the data/evidence but solely on their ideological, emotional, and knee-jerk reaction to me…

Downvoting

(That screenshot above is taken from the comments section for this video.)

It’s worth noting that the small hardcore of viewers who regularly downvote and leave comments about the ostensible lack of credibility of the science I present are very often precisely those who would claim to be ever-so-rational and whose clarion call is “Facts over feels” [1]. Yet they are so opposed to my “SJW-ism” that they reject everything I say, on any topic, as untrustworthy; they cannot get beyond their gut-level emotional reaction to me.

My dedicated following of haters is a microcosm of the deep political polarisation we’re seeing online, with science caught in the slip-stream and accepted/rejected on the basis of how it appeals to a given worldview, rather than on the strength of the scientific evidence itself. (And it’s always fun to be told exactly how science works by those who have never carried out an experiment, published a paper, been a member of a peer-review panel, reviewed a grant etc.) This then begs the question: Am I, as a left-leaning academic with clearly diabolical SJW tendencies, in any position at all to educate this particular audience on any topic? Of course not. No matter how much scientific data and evidence I provide it will be dismissed out of hand because I am not of their tribe.[3]

Jim Al-Khalili’s argument at the Young Universities Summit that what’s required is ever-more education and academic engagement is, in essence, what sociologists and Science and Technology Studies (STS) experts would describe as the deficit model. The deficit model has been widely discredited because it simply does not accurately describe how we modify our views (or not) in the light of more information. (At the risk of making …And Then There’s Physics  scream, I encourage you to read their informative and entertaining posts on the theme of the deficit model.)

Prof. Al-Khalili is further reported as stating that “…to some extent, you do have to stand up and you do have to bang on about evidence and rationalism, because if we don’t, we will make the same mistakes of the past where the vacuum will be filled with people talking pseudoscience or nonsense.” 

Banging on about evidence and rationalism will have close to zero effect on ideologically opoosed audiences because they already see themselves as rational and driven by evidence [3]; they won’t admit to being biased and irrational because their bias is unconscious. And we are all guilty of succumbing to unconscious bias, to a greater or lesser extent. Force-feeding  more data and evidence to those with whom we disagree is not only unlikely to change their minds, it’s much more likely to entrench them further in their views. (McRaney, passim.)

Let me make a radical suggestion. What if we academics decided to engage rather less sometimes? After all, who is best placed to sway the position — on climate change, vaccination, healthcare, social welfare, or just about any topic — of a deeply anti-establishment Trump supporter who has fallen hook, line, and sinker for the “universities are hotbeds of cultural Marxism” meme? A liberal academic who can trot out chapter and verse from the literature, and present watertight quantitative (and qualitative) arguments ?

Of course not.

We need to connect, somehow, beyond the level of raw data and evidence. We need to appeal to that individual’s biases and psychology. And that means thinking more cannily, and more politically, about how we influence a community. Barking, or even gently reciting, facts and figures is not going to work. This is uncomfortable for any scientist, I know. But you don’t need to take my word for it — review the evidence for yourself.

The strength of the data used to support a scientific argument almost certainly won’t make a damn bit of difference when a worldview or ideology is challenged. And that’s not because our audience is uneducated. Nor are they unintelligent. They are behaving exactly as we do. They are protecting their worldview via the backfire effect.

 


[1] One might credibly argue that the rejection skew could lean the other way on certain topics such as the anti-vaccination debate, where anecdotal, and other, evidence might suggest that there is a stronger liberal/left bias. It turns out that even when it comes to anti-vaxxers, there is quite a considerable amount of data to support that it’s the right that has a higher degree of anti-science bias [2]. Here’s one key example: Trust In Scientists On Climate Change and Vaccines, LC Hamilton, J Hartter, and K Saito,  SAGE Open, July – Sept 2015, 1 – 13. See also Beyond Misinformation, S. Lewandowsky, U. K. H. Ecker, and J. Cook, J. Appl. Res. Memory. Cogn. 6 353 (2017) for a brief review of some of the more important literature on this topic.

[2] …but then it’s all lefty, liberal academics writing these papers, right? They would say that.

[3] Here’s an amusing recent example of numerological nonsense being passed off as scientific reasoning. Note that Peter Coles’ correspondent claims that the science is on his side. How persuasive do you think he’ll find Peter’s watertight, evidence-based reasoning to be? How should he be further persauded? Will more scientific evidence and data do the trick?

 

Why we need Pride

I’m reblogging Peter Coles’ post on just why the idea of “Straight Pride” is such a pathetic notion. Despite all their interminable whining about snowflakes, there is nothing quite as fragile, delicate, and insecure as those who rail against diversity at any available opportunity. (And, of course, the legend in his own lunchtime that is Milo Yiannopoulos was first in the queue to support the “Straight Pride” toddlers. Milo’s tiresomely transparent self-serving pearl-clutching was past its sell-by date a very long time ago. But he’s got bills to pay…)

In the Dark

This month is LGBT Pride Month and this year I am looking forward to attending my first ever Dublin Pride.

I do occasionally encounter heterosexual people who trot out the tedious `when is it Straight Pride?’ in much the same way as much the same people ask when is it `International Men’s Day’?

Well, have a look at this picture and read the accompanying story and ask yourself when have you ever been beaten up because of your sexual orientation?

It seems heterosexual privilege comes with blinkers in the same way that male privilege and white privilege do. Anything that threatens this sense of entitlement is to be countered to be countered, with violence if necessary. The above example is an extreme manifestation of this. The yobs on that night bus apparently think that lesbians only exist for the amusement of straight men. When the two women refused to…

View original post 34 more words

I wouldn’t even call ’em pathetic: The alpha-rated fragility of the Manosphere

NoGirlsAllowed.png

If you’re not familiar with the internet sub-culture known as the Manosphere, you may want to look away right now. This is going to get ugly.

We’ll need the traditional trigger warning before we start…

If you find that you are unable to respond to criticism of sexism without randomly arranging terms such as SJW, white knight, cuck, kill yourself, bitch, whore, rape, professional victims, PC gone mad, First Amendment, feminazi, and/or fuck (or other assorted expletives) into grammatically dubious and arbitrarily capitalised boilerplate then you may find the following post both intellectually and emotionally challenging. A strong and potentially damaging kneejerk response or, indeed, extreme overreaction may result.

You have been warned.

My apologies for the need to include a trigger warning but, as we’re about to see, the Manospherians (Manospheroids?) are a hyper-sensitive and fragile bunch. They take offence at the drop of a fedora so it’s only fair to give any Manosphere-dweller that might be reading a heads-up — there’s some content ahead that they’re going to find ‘problematic’.

In the short video below, the wonderful somegreybloke explains the Manosphere so much better than I ever could. It’s well worth somewhat less than two minutes of your time…

To summarise Mr. Greybloke’s already pithy summary, the central premise of the average Manospherian is that “white heterosexual men living in affluent Western societies are the most oppressed and discriminated-against people in the world…living under the jackboot of a misandrist gynocracy… [because] the evil feminazis that control the vagina supply have imposed a secret genital boycott.”

Got that? Like Mr. Greybloke, this shocking revelation was news to me until I was introduced a few years back to the, ahem, ‘content’ generated by a number of leading lights in the Manospherical movement via this video series from the (Minchin-esque) Michael Rowlands. Oh, and of course this classic (from the aforementioned (first link above) Harry Brewis.)

Now, usually, the Manosphere’s residents are safely and happily ensconced in YouTubia, where they preach to their converted subscriber bases (which typically number of order a million or so). One of its denizens, however, has moved overground of late to participate in real world politics. I’m talking about the guy pictured in the Sky News tweet below…

Carl Benjamin — or, to use his Manospherian identity, Sargon of Akkad (…yes, I know; let’s move swiftly on) — is second on UKIP’s list for MEP candidates in the South-West of England (should the European Parliament elections go ahead.)  As David Baddiel points out in his tweet above, Carl, an out-and-proud Manospherian, tends to get very worked up and emotional about that misandrist gynocracy that’s happening under our noses (….if we’d only wake up.) Now, as a similarly out-and-proud social justice warrior (SJW), I’ve got to say that there’s nothing wrong, at all, with emotional responses. But Mr. Benjamin is a fully signed-up member of the “Fuck Your Feelings” brigade, who loudly claim that they put rational, dispassionate argument above all else. So here is Carl dispassionately musing on the subject of Eliot Rodger, the 22 year-old who murdered six people in California in 2014 because women rejected him…

(And just as I was writing this post, I note that The Guardian has, earlier this evening, picked up on the video above (although they don’t include the clip itself in the article): UKIP MEP candidate blamed feminists for rise in misogyny )

In case you couldn’t quite get the jist of Carl’s message there, here’s what the UKIP South-West MEP candidate (945K YouTube subscribers and counting) had to say about the murders:

When someone takes the option of absolute, insanely last resort, you have to wonder what kind of system is producing them. And I tell you what … it is a fucking feminist system that’s doing this

But it gets worse.

I tangled with “Sargon” and a few of his chums — including the gentleman advocating for paedophilia described in this Twitter thread – a few years back; I described Mr. Benjamin as “odious” on more than one occasion back then and I’ve certainly not seen any reason to revise that opinion just yet. (This was before I copped on and realised that, by reacting, I was simply taking the bait and doing nothing more than helping generate Patreon income for Benjamin and his ilk.) Kristi Winters, a political scientist based in Germany, has documented many instances (here are just a few) of Mr. Benjamin’s cluelessness on feminism and social justice. Indeed, she formally debated Benjamin a number of years ago, deftly highlighting the paucity of his ‘arguments’.

Benjamin’s “I wouldn’t even rape you” tweet neatly sums up all you need to know about the man’s quality of argumentation and wit in just five words. As Jess Phillips, MP, at whom Benjamin targeted his tweet, points out:

While the reading comprehension of a not-insignificant fraction of the “Sargon” fanbase doesn’t quite stretch to understanding the role that the inclusion of “even” plays in his infamous tweet, Mr. Benjamin himself certainly knows. He very deliberately left out the word when he called his mum to tell her about how naughty he’d been, and then uploaded the footage. (Yes, you read that right. A 38 year old man, and father of two, filmed himself calling his mum to tell her what he didn’t say to an MP about raping her. And then uploaded it for his cheering fans.)

Benjamin doubles, triples, and quadruples down on his tweet at any available opportunity, claiming that he doesn’t care about the “moral outrage” it generates. But then, as with most who claim to be vigorous defenders of freedom of speech, who whine incessantly about putting “facts above feelings”, and who throw around the “snowflake” label with relish, Mr. Benjamin does not respond at all well to jokes at his expense. When a “Sargon of Akkad” parody account was set up, instead of taking the criticism (the “banter”) on the chin, Carl was very clearly outraged. Some might even say that he was hurt. By jokes.

He’s also not quite grasped the concept of freedom of speech.

I’ve just finished reading the incredible “Rising Out of Hatred” by Eli Saslow. I cannot recommend this book highly enough. It’s a powerfully affecting account of how Derek Black — son of Don Black, godson of David Duke, and arguably the most important person in U.S. white nationalism before he rose out of the hatred — came to change his views and mindset. That happened not through ostracising and demonising the man but, remarkably, because his (Jewish, Hispanic, liberal, progressive) friends listened, countered the prejudices and deeply engrained ideology, and changed his views. They changed him.

I’d like to think that Carl might similarly one day realise just what role he is playing in stoking up hate and division; he’s been lauded by no less than Richard Spencer as a “gateway” to the alt-right. I don’t think he’s entirely comfortable with that dubious accolade. But he’s got a long way to go before he can let go of the fragile rage that drives him. It is now nearly two years since Heather Anable, a contributor to a channel called The Skeptic Feminist, was murdered by her boyfriend. Carl Benjamin, along with a number of other sick individuals, participated in a livestream, hours after Heather’s murder, to laugh at her death. Even some of his fellow Manospherians were disgusted by this.

I wouldn’t even, Carl.

I wouldn’t even.


I did not ever meet Heather but I got to know her via Facebook messages while I was a member of a social justice/feminist FB group for a few months. Heather was the first to see the good in someone. The irony is that she would have tried her best to talk with Benjamin, to try to find some common ground and to appeal to his humanity. She’d have loved to have read “Rising Out of Hatred.”

Image credit: http://whenthekidsgotobed.com/2013/03/12/the-bookshelf-no-girls-allowed/

How Science Got Women Wrong

They say you should never meet those who’ve inspired you because it’s impossible to live up to the weight of expectations. Well, sometimes they’re just flat-out wrong. Angela Saini, whose Inferior is a masterclass in compelling science writing (for all of the reasons Jess Wade discusses in her review for Physics World), visited Nottingham yesterday evening, rounding off a week of events for International Women’s Day, to give what may well have been her very last talk on the subject of that exceptionally influential book: how science got women wrong. And she was every bit as impressive in person as her writing would suggest.

IMG_6582.JPG

 

Angela carefully, scientifically, and engagingly dismissed the various stereotypes and zombie myths that continue to be trotted out, unthinkingly, by those who claim that women are just not “wired” for science. She was too polite to name and shame the academic responsible for the nonsense below — from a book published as recently as 2010 [1]–  which drew incredulous chuckles and laughter from the audience…

IMG_6607.JPG

I’m not as polite as Angela, however. That quote is from Simon Baron-Cohen, whom I’ve mentioned before once or twice at this blog in the context of over-aggrieved gentlemen and their wilfully uninformed assertions on the natural order of things. Angela highlighted how even the best scientists (Darwin included) can unblinkingly accept the cultural and societal mores and prejudices of their time.

My colleague and friend Mark Fromhold neatly summed up Angela’s talk:

..and I agree entirely with @UoNBioscicareer’s take on the take-home message:

Thank you, Angela, for visiting Nottingham to explain not only how science got women wrong but what we need to do to put things right. Those biases are deeply engrained but, to echo the message we closed on last night, recognising them is the first step towards addressing them.

Angela’s new book Superior: The Return of Race Science is out at the end of May. It is set to be just as influential as Inferior. You can pre-order it now…

[1] That’s not a typo. 2010. Not 1910.