feminist blogs in english

by Amanda Marcotte

One of the most pernicious aspects of the global warming conspiracy theorists who imply that millions of scientists, politicians, pundits, and activists are in collusion to perpetrate a global warming hoax is the way they call themselves “skeptics”.  Even How To Talk To A Climate Skeptic uses this term, reinforcing the idea idea that global warming denialism has any relationship to skepticism.  Why is this so damaging?  Well, even though “skeptic” isn’t exactly the most popular thing in the world to be, it does imply rationality that denialists don’t actually have.  We need to stop calling them “skeptics” and use the more accurate term “denialist”. 

Let’s get into definitions.  What is a denialist?  Denialists are a very specific form of conspiracy theorist.  Some conspiracy theories argue the Freemasons control the world, that Bush was behind 9/11, or that there was a plot to kill JFK.  They create alternative readings of history that satisfy their allergy to the chaotic form real systems take.  Denialists, however, are more interested in taking those things that are established science or history, and denying their reality or importance. They often have ulterior political motives, but sometimes they just deny because reality makes them feel small or dependent or helpless.  There are a lot of denialists:

*Holocaust deniers, who promote the idea that the Holocaust was a hoax.  They either flat-out deny it, or, more commonly, they try to say it wasn’t as bad as history would have you believe.
*Anti-vaxxers, who promote the idea that the great public health innovation of the modern world is actually more dangerous than helpful.
*Moon landing nutters, who deny that the U.S. put a man on the moon, and claim it was staged.
*Creationists, who deny the theory of evolution.
*HIV denialists, who deny that HIV is the virus that causes AIDS, which is related to conspiracy theories about how the government is behind AIDS.

I’d probably toss in anti-feminists who deny that domestic violence and rape are significant social problems, as well.  Denialists are a particularly toxic group of conspiracy theorist nutters, because they pass themselves off as skeptics.  In his book Voodoo Histories, David Aaronovitch explains how denialists wear the sheep’s clothing of skeptics in order to seem reasonable, instead of being the paranoids promoting unbelievable conspiracy theories that they are:

Since 2001, a primary technique employed by more respectable conspiracists has been the advocation of the “It’s not a theory” theory.  The theorist is just asking certain disturbing questions because of a desire to seek out truth, and the reader is supposedly left to make up his or her mind.  The questions asked, of course, only make sense if the questioner really believes there is a secret conspiracy.

You see this a lot with global warming denialists.  They think this quote minded email here or this fishy story about a fraudulent study there is a “disturbing question”, but all they’re really doing is saying, “There’s a vast worldwide conspiracy to perpetuate this hoax, though I can’t come right out and say that without revealing that I’m a conspiracist.” You can tell they’re more devoted to their conspiracy theory than getting to the bottom of things, because they ignore it when their “questions” are answered.  If they really cared about being satisfied, when their questions were answered, they would immediately drop their “skepticism” and realize that global warming is real.  Their questions are also often based on incorrect premises.  For instance, denialists have “questions” about the ”hockey stick”.  Setting aside the fact that the “questions” have been answered, and they’re ignoring the answers, the main assumption they’re working under---that one study out of hundreds being flawed brings the whole thing down---is simply wrong.  Science doesn’t work that way.  We’re not talking about the theory that the Bible is infallible, which is something that falls apart the first contradiction you find in the Bible.  Science works on the accumulation of data to point us in a direction, not received wisdom.

Calibrating historical weather trends is tricky stuff, and there are different conclusions from different measurements.  But taken together, they all show a single, compelling trend: global warming.

Global warming denialists are using exactly the same technique as creationists: zeroing in on relatively minor, technical, inside baseball disagreements about exact data to create confusion with the public that doesn’t understand science.  But that this scientist disagrees with that one about how a specific species evolved doesn’t mean the theory of evolution isn’t substantive.  That one scientist disagrees with another about how a specific neuron in the brain works doesn’t disprove the theory that our brains are the center of our nervous system.  The same is true of climate science.

What is a skeptic, and why aren’t denialists skeptics?

Skeptics also ask questions, but a big difference between skeptics and denialists is that skeptics listen to answers and regard evidence as paramount.  Denialists tend to see the piles of evidence against their claim, and see a conspiracy theory to perpetuate a hoax.  But skeptics accept good evidence.  Skeptics have a lot of respect for science, and denialists are usually out to undermine scientists working in the field where they have an agenda.  Denialists will wear the costume of scientific thinking, but they usually show a piss-poor understanding how how the accumulation of studies and data work.  (For instance, they promote the idea that if one study can be found to be flawed, this brings down the whole theory, as if the other hundreds of studies don’t count.)

This distinction is really important, because the role of skeptics is to dispute and even disprove outrageous conspiracy theory claims.  Skeptics fight against denialists.  That’s why I’m interested in skepticism---I fear that there’s a surge of denialist thinking in our culture fueled by new media (which is great at a lot of good things, but also good at spreading misinformation) and the explosion in both complications in world politics and the everyday person’s awareness of them.  As science begins to dictate more and more of what we know, there’s also a cultural backlash that’s related to the overall backlash against modernism.  Skepticism is becoming more and more important as the political troops to defend science.  So when people who are part of the anti-science backlash call themselves “skeptics”, this confuses the issue.

Are there members of the skeptical community who are global warming denialists?

Sadly, yes. It doesn’t really make sense, initially, but what’s happened is that organized skepticism draws a lot from sci-fi geeks and magic aficionados who get into skepticism because they loathe people pass themselves off as psychics or magicians who pretend they really have magic power.  Also, Ayn Rand fans often embrace her atheism, and atheists activists and skeptics have a lot of overlap.  In other words, libertarians are way overrepresented in the community.  Think Penn and Teller.  And while libertarians have ridiculous political ideas, that’s seemed not to be a big deal when they were out working to expose the lies of psychics and homeopaths. 

But now the skeptical movement is paying in a big way for their willingness to overlook some of the kooky beliefs of libertarians, because it’s become internally a political nightmare to organize in support of climate science.  Libertarians pitch a fit.  And they’re impossible to deal with, because their own beliefs that they are critical thinkers are causing them to fail to see that they’re denialists when it comes to global warming, engaging in the same illogical, fallacy-laden arguments that “evolution skeptics”, i.e. creationists use.  When I was at TAM, I was really sad to see that people who pride themselves on no-bullshit-ness were tip-toeing around global warming denialist bullshit for fear of pissing off libertarians and losing allies.  It’s a shame to see, because it really blows a hole in the skeptical movement’s efforts to really become the political voice supporting science, even as they’re doing good work fighting anti-vaxxers and creationists.

The problem is that global warming presents a much, much, much bigger threat than people passing themselves off as homeopaths.  There’s a great website that chronicles the harm created by kooks and cranks of every persuasion, but global warming denialists are left off it, even though the potential body count from their conspiracy theory goes well into the millions, easily.  Every day that Americans cultivate global warming denialism is a day where the progress towards reform that can limit or even reverse the damage is stymied, and a day closer to the social fallout from increasingly erratic weather. The skeptical movement is limiting itself and its impact by coddling libertarians peddling kooky global warming denialist theories, and the sooner they’re pushed out, I’m afraid the better skepticism will be. 

by Amanda Marcotte

One of the most pernicious aspects of the global warming conspiracy theorists who imply that millions of scientists, politicians, pundits, and activists are in collusion to perpetrate a global warming hoax is the way they call themselves “skeptics”.  Even How To Talk To A Climate Skeptic uses this term, reinforcing the idea idea that global warming denialism has any relationship to skepticism.  Why is this so damaging?  Well, even though “skeptic” isn’t exactly the most popular thing in the world to be, it does imply rationality that denialists don’t actually have.  We need to stop calling them “skeptics” and use the more accurate term “denialist”. 

Let’s get into definitions.  What is a denialist?  Denialists are a very specific form of conspiracy theorist.  Some conspiracy theories argue the Freemasons control the world, that Bush was behind 9/11, or that there was a plot to kill JFK.  They create alternative readings of history that satisfy their allergy to the chaotic form real systems take.  Denialists, however, are more interested in taking those things that are established science or history, and denying their reality or importance. They often have ulterior political motives, but sometimes they just deny because reality makes them feel small or dependent or helpless.  There are a lot of denialists:

*Holocaust deniers, who promote the idea that the Holocaust was a hoax.  They either flat-out deny it, or, more commonly, they try to say it wasn’t as bad as history would have you believe.
*Anti-vaxxers, who promote the idea that the great public health innovation of the modern world is actually more dangerous than helpful.
*Moon landing nutters, who deny that the U.S. put a man on the moon, and claim it was staged.
*Creationists, who deny the theory of evolution.
*HIV denialists, who deny that HIV is the virus that causes AIDS, which is related to conspiracy theories about how the government is behind AIDS.

I’d probably toss in anti-feminists who deny that domestic violence and rape are significant social problems, as well.  Denialists are a particularly toxic group of conspiracy theorist nutters, because they pass themselves off as skeptics.  In his book Voodoo Histories, David Aaronovitch explains how denialists wear the sheep’s clothing of skeptics in order to seem reasonable, instead of being the paranoids promoting unbelievable conspiracy theories that they are:

Since 2001, a primary technique employed by more respectable conspiracists has been the advocation of the “It’s not a theory” theory.  The theorist is just asking certain disturbing questions because of a desire to seek out truth, and the reader is supposedly left to make up his or her mind.  The questions asked, of course, only make sense if the questioner really believes there is a secret conspiracy.

You see this a lot with global warming denialists.  They think this quote mined email here or this fishy story about a fraudulent study there is a “disturbing question”, but all they’re really doing is saying, “There’s a vast worldwide conspiracy to perpetuate this hoax, though I can’t come right out and say that without revealing that I’m a conspiracist.” You can tell they’re more devoted to their conspiracy theory than getting to the bottom of things, because they ignore it when their “questions” are answered.  If they really cared about being satisfied, when their questions were answered, they would immediately drop their “skepticism” and realize that global warming is real.  Their questions are also often based on incorrect premises.  For instance, denialists have “questions” about the ”hockey stick”.  Setting aside the fact that the “questions” have been answered, and they’re ignoring the answers, the main assumption they’re working under---that one study out of hundreds being flawed brings the whole thing down---is simply wrong.  Science doesn’t work that way.  We’re not talking about the theory that the Bible is infallible, which is something that falls apart the first contradiction you find in the Bible.  Science works on the accumulation of data to point us in a direction, not received wisdom.

Calibrating historical weather trends is tricky stuff, and there are different conclusions from different measurements.  But taken together, they all show a single, compelling trend: global warming.

Global warming denialists are using exactly the same technique as creationists: zeroing in on relatively minor, technical, inside baseball disagreements about exact data to create confusion with the public that doesn’t understand science.  But that this scientist disagrees with that one about how a specific species evolved doesn’t mean the theory of evolution isn’t substantive.  That one scientist disagrees with another about how a specific neuron in the brain works doesn’t disprove the theory that our brains are the center of our nervous system.  The same is true of climate science.

What is a skeptic, and why aren’t denialists skeptics?

Skeptics also ask questions, but a big difference between skeptics and denialists is that skeptics listen to answers and regard evidence as paramount.  Denialists tend to see the piles of evidence against their claim, and see a conspiracy theory to perpetuate a hoax.  But skeptics accept good evidence.  Skeptics have a lot of respect for science, and denialists are usually out to undermine scientists working in the field where they have an agenda.  Denialists will wear the costume of scientific thinking, but they usually show a piss-poor understanding how how the accumulation of studies and data work.  (For instance, they promote the idea that if one study can be found to be flawed, this brings down the whole theory, as if the other hundreds of studies don’t count.)

This distinction is really important, because the role of skeptics is to dispute and even disprove outrageous conspiracy theory claims.  Skeptics fight against denialists.  That’s why I’m interested in skepticism---I fear that there’s a surge of denialist thinking in our culture fueled by new media (which is great at a lot of good things, but also good at spreading misinformation) and the explosion in both complications in world politics and the everyday person’s awareness of them.  As science begins to dictate more and more of what we know, there’s also a cultural backlash that’s related to the overall backlash against modernism.  Skepticism is becoming more and more important as the political troops to defend science.  So when people who are part of the anti-science backlash call themselves “skeptics”, this confuses the issue.

Are there members of the skeptical community who are global warming denialists?

Sadly, yes. It doesn’t really make sense, initially, but what’s happened is that organized skepticism draws a lot from sci-fi geeks and magic aficionados who get into skepticism because they loathe people pass themselves off as psychics or magicians who pretend they really have magic power.  Also, Ayn Rand fans often embrace her atheism, and atheists activists and skeptics have a lot of overlap.  In other words, libertarians are way overrepresented in the community.  Think Penn and Teller.  And while libertarians have ridiculous political ideas, that’s seemed not to be a big deal when they were out working to expose the lies of psychics and homeopaths. 

But now the skeptical movement is paying in a big way for their willingness to overlook some of the kooky beliefs of libertarians, because it’s become internally a political nightmare to organize in support of climate science.  Libertarians pitch a fit.  And they’re impossible to deal with, because their own beliefs that they are critical thinkers are causing them to fail to see that they’re denialists when it comes to global warming, engaging in the same illogical, fallacy-laden arguments that “evolution skeptics”, i.e. creationists use.  When I was at TAM, I was really sad to see that people who pride themselves on no-bullshit-ness were tip-toeing around global warming denialist bullshit for fear of pissing off libertarians and losing allies.  It’s a shame to see, because it really blows a hole in the skeptical movement’s efforts to really become the political voice supporting science, even as they’re doing good work fighting anti-vaxxers and creationists.

The problem is that global warming presents a much, much, much bigger threat than people passing themselves off as homeopaths.  There’s a great website that chronicles the harm created by kooks and cranks of every persuasion, but global warming denialists are left off it, even though the potential body count from their conspiracy theory goes well into the millions, easily.  Every day that Americans cultivate global warming denialism is a day where the progress towards reform that can limit or even reverse the damage is stymied, and a day closer to the social fallout from increasingly erratic weather. The skeptical movement is limiting itself and its impact by coddling libertarians peddling kooky global warming denialist theories, and the sooner they’re pushed out, I’m afraid the better skepticism will be. 

by Amanda Marcotte

My first question upon reading about how non-nutbar home schoolers are having trouble getting decent science books for their kids is this: Why are you giving a single dime to the Christian right?  How could you not know that when you buy a science textbook from a “Christian” publisher, it’s going to be a diatribe against the theory of evolution? 

That a whole market for home schooling textbooks exists isn’t surprising in the slightest, of course.  83% of home schoolers report that they pulled their kids out of school to give them “religious or moral” instruction, i.e. that they’re fanatical Christians who want to exert firm control over their children until they’re sure that they’re brainwashed enough that they won’t stray from the path.  (That this system ensures that wives have no interests or time outside of the family is just a bonus.) What’s going on with the other 17% is probably a grab bag of stuff---bad school districts (or the perception of that), resentment towards the training-you-to-be-compliant aspects of public education, general hippiness---but what I find interesting and sometimes amusing about the other home schoolers is that they seem, to outsiders, way too interested in looking at the religious wackos with a forgiving eye.  Is it just that fundies so dominate home schooling that the everyone else home schoolers feel they either create those alliances or languish in loneliness? 

I’m surprised they found a woman who was willing to go on the record with a story about how she bought a biology textbook from Bob Jones University, and was shocked and appalled that it denied the reality of evolution.  And in a proper twee flourish, gave her small child all the credit for catching the error, as if the child was somehow so brilliant she was born knowing the theory of evolution.  I’m surprised, because I’d be too humiliated by this mistake to talk about it, especially if I was interested in selling the idea that I was all my child needs in terms of pre-university instruction, since admitting to that kind of mistake really undermines your credibility.  Adding the detail that implies that you might have missed it if it weren’t for your child’s intervention doesn’t help matters.  I realize the woman is just participating in that common but annoying cultural trope of, “Me? I’m just a mom, nothing special.  Except that I produced these brilliant offspring!”, but still.  It’s a little over the top. 

Part of me wishes that fundie home schoolers found that raising children to deny basic reality will have a long-term detriment to those kids’ futures, but unfortunately, going to public school is no guard against believing that everything out of your limited understanding must be magic.  And so having one more magical belief doesn’t really make much difference in our society.  We are all swirling down the drain of ignorance about science.  Take for instance, the appallingly magical view a lot of young people have about contraception.  Honestly, estimating that the pill fails half the time is straight up magical thinking, assuming that the pill works like wishes and superstitions, which probably work out half the time on average because most wishes and superstitions are addressing a binary situation that involves chance.  (Like what team is going to win in tonight’s big game.) It may not feel like magical thinking---I’m sure there’s a haphazard line of made-up reasoning to explain where they got this idea---but that’s what it is.  Even a rudimentary understanding of human biology would go a long way to helping people understand things like how contraception works.  (I’m not trying to dog on anyone here; I know a lot of smart people who haven’t managed to get past the incorrect idea that the pill “tricks” your body into thinking it’s pregnant.  It actually just maintains your hormones at a level that isn’t the one required to ovulate.) Fundies are just pushing us further down the path we were already on, where scientific ignorance is normal and practically expected.

So I guess I shouldn’t be too hard on home schoolers who get duped by these textbooks.  I think a lot of people defend evolutionary theory for the wrong reasons---not because they understand it, but because they (correctly) perceive the pro-ignorance, patriarchal bent of fundamentalists who oppose evolutionary theory.  But you definitely see really smart people buy into incorrect tropes about science that are ones that the fundies are promoting.  For instance, the concept of “Darwinism”, as if Darwin created a religion or ideology that people “believe” in.  But that’s not how scientific theories work.  Darwin is an interesting historical figure, but the theory itself has morphed and expanded and diversified and dare I say evolved.  But most people struggle with understanding how a scientist criticizing one aspect of natural selection as an all-encompassing theory isn’t actually trying to bring down the whole thing like a house of cards.  As such, we’re in a poor position to defend ourselves and science, even if we mean well. 

Heather Corinna, founder and executive editor of the indispensable site Scarleteen, is doing a large study on multigenerational experiences with and attitudes about casual sex. The data will ideally be used for publication, but answers are completely anonymous and will only be used anonymously.

There’s a lot of buzz now about “hooking up,” the newest term for casual sex, though casual sex isn’t new at all — nor does it only belong to the current generation, despite often being presented that way. Unlike most of the buzz out there, she’s not interested in telling anyone how to have sex, warning people off any given kind of sex or in presenting any one kind of sex as “the best way.” She’s just looking for what’s real, both in sexual attitudes and experiences among a diverse array of ages, genders and sexual identities, races and sexual ideologies/constructions. The only requirements for participating in this study are being over the age of 16, and having had some kind of sexual partnership before, even if none has been casual. The study will take around twenty minutes.

She would like the study to show as diverse an array of people as possible, especially since so often media representations or cultural conversations about casual sex are usually only about heterosexual white women or about gay men. She particularly wants to be sure LGBT people, people of color, those over 45 and social conservatives are adequately represented, so please share this link with your networks after you take the survey yourself, especially if your networks include people in any or all of those groups. I know I have a number of readers who fall into those groups, and urge them to take part.

You can take the survey by clicking here.

If you don’t know who Heather is, she’s been working in human sexuality for around 12 years. She is the founder and executive director for Scarleteen.com, does sex education outreach at youth shelters and women’s clinics in Seattle, and has been a sex columnist and writer online for sites like The Guardian and RH Reality Check. She has also been published in a handful of anthologies and is the author of S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know-Progressive Sexuality Guide to Get You Through High School and College (DaCapo Press), a book which I regard as the single best sex education text available anywhere.

If you have any questions, you can contact Heather at hcorinna@mac.com

by Pam Spaulding

It was clear that the Commonwealth of Virginia was going to take a turn for the worse politically when openly wingnut and ant-gay Bob McDonnell pulled the wool over enough voter eyes to slide into the governor’s chair. It gave fringe wingnuts and Dominionists like lawmaker Bob Marshall free rein to spew scripture-laden insanity as public policy.

Rachel Maddow took on the hate Marshall harbors for women’s reproductive freedom and, by association, disabled children. Even worse, he cited the Bible to justify his remarks in the context of blocking state funding for Planned Parenthood.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on Monday assailed a series of recent moves in Virginia under new Gov. Bob McDonnell, citing the rising influence of the Christian right in exacerbating “discrimination” against gays and women.

Maddow was dumbstruck by state legislator Bob Marshall (R-Manassas), who declared Monday that children born with disabilities are God’s “vengeance” for abortion, quoting scripture to make his case.

“The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children,” Marshall said, according to the Capital News Service

A speechless Maddow noted that Marshall stood by his remarks when contacted by her producers. “This is the argument he’s using as an elected official to...cut off any state support for Planned Parenthood,” she said.

McDonnell, by the way, apparently tried to rein in the bad PR that he brought upon himself by assuming everyone is a demented “Christian” as himself. So out came the “clarification.”

A story by Capital News Service regarding my remarks at a recent press conference opposing taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood conveyed the impression that I believe disabled children are a punishment for prior abortions. No one who knows me or my record would imagine that I believe or intended to communicate such an offensive notion[.] I regret any misimpression my poorly chosen words may have created[.]

As Right Wing Watch points out, this man has a history of attempts to roll back beyond-offensive statements he’s made, but there’s no misimpression when you go to the videotape…

Marshall is entitled to his offensive views, but he should not run from them.

It’s worth noting that Marshall has a history of saying offensive things – or being “misinterpreted.”

He said this about abortion in the case of rape: “[T]he woman becomes a sin-bearer of the crime, because the right of a child predominates over the embarrassment of the woman.”

And he said this about contraception: “[W]e have no business passing this garbage out and making these co-eds chemical Love Canals for these frat house playboys in Virginia.”

My sources tell me that today, the immunization committee at the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) is debating whether to recommend the use of Gardasil, a vaccine against HPV, for use with male patients. HPV, or the human papillomavirus, is the most common of sexually-transmitted infections; the CDC estimates that 50% of sexually active adults will acquire HPV at one point over the course of their lives. Some suggest that the percentage is higher still.

HPV has been conclusively linked to cervical cancer. Since 2006, Gardasil has been approved by the FDA for use in inoculating women against HPV. Because the best form of protection is prevention, many health experts recommend vaccinating girls before they become sexually active. Given the grim reality that HPV can be easily transmitted through non-consensual sex, and given the ease with which the virus is spread through oral sex, vaccinating girls before the onset of puberty is encouraged. (This has led, of course, to predictable howls from the religious right, who are less concerned with protecting young women’s health and more concerned that a vaccine against HPV might encourage pre-marital sexual exploration.)

But as an article in the brand-new issue of Ms. Magazine makes clear, HPV poses a greater threat to men and boys than was previously known. The Adina Nack piece is not available online, but here’s a quote from what’s available on your newsstand:

While it is fears of cervical cancer that
have motivated young women to get HPV vaccines,
that’s not the only cancer caused by this virus: It can lead
to oral, anal and penile cancers as well. In fact, the combined
U.S. death rates for these cancers are at least twice
that of cervical cancers… Some researchers, in fact, believe that
HPV may soon cause more oral cancers in the U.S. than
alcohol or tobacco combined.

As a result of this research, the CDC may well soon recommend that boys and young men also be inoculated with Gardasil, as the connection between HPV and oral/anal cancer becomes as apparent as it already is with cervical cancer.

Nack emphasizes that men’s health is a feminist issue:

Women’s health—especially reproductive health—is usually
the focus of sexual-health discussions but men’s health
also deserves women’s attention—and not just because
women care about their sons, male partners and male
friends. It almost goes without saying that women can also
be infected by their intimate partners, and since the great
majority of women primarily have heterosexual relations,
that usually means by men.

In fact, men’s health is an even larger feminist issue.
“Feminists have a vested interest in advocating for policies
and circumstances around the world that shape men’s ability
to develop healthy sex lives, which, by definition, has
to include respect for the rights of those with whom they
partner, regardless of gender,” says Patricia Rieker, Ph.D.,
a sociologist at Boston University and Harvard Medical
School and coauthor of Gender and Health (Cambridge
University Press, 2008).

The truth is, if women don’t prioritize men’s health,
we’re not just losing a chance to foster the overall health
of our communities, we’re actually putting ourselves and
future generations at risk

It is axiomatic that women of all ages are more willing to seek medical treatment than are men. The “sturdy oak” myth of robust masculinity makes it difficult for boys and men to acknowledge vulnerability. Our cultural narrative about heterosexuality tends to suggest that women are emotionally and physiologically more fragile — and more likely to “suffer” from sex. That “expectation of female suffering” (associated with everything from first penetration to pregnancy to increased vulnerability to STIs to the guarantee of heartbreak after a break-up or abortion) is matched with a narrative of male imperviousness to harm. We like to pretend that boys are dense, violent, and comparatively shallow. But boys do cry, and boys do get hurt, and as the latest research shows, boys do get HPV-related cancers too.

Feminists have done much to dispatch the myth of female frailty. They have also been on the frontlines of fighting against this myth of the invulnerable male. It is no surprise then that we find this important clarion call for male sexual health in the pages of Ms. Magazine.

by Pam Spaulding

It’s abandon ship for Suzanne Hinn, the wife of massive egomaniac and bilker of millions prosperity gospel proponent, Benny Hinn. She’s citing irreconcilable differences. I’m kinda wondering how Benny can explain away this development, as there’s a lot in the Bible about divorce.

Suzanne Hinn filed the papers on February 1 in Orange County Superior Court. She and Benny Hinn – who have been married for more than 30 years – separated on January 26, according to the filing.

I guess there are just some things that Benny can’t heal through melodramatics.

The soon-to-be-former Mrs. Hinn probably knows about a lot of the skeletons in false prophet Hinn’s closet regarding the scammery he has perpetrated on those in his flock who paid thousands of offerings to Mr. Hinn in exchange for being “healed” of fatal illnesses. From an earlier Blend post on his ministry, in what was one of the most pathetic beg-a-thons—asking his faithful to open their wallets for a new private jet, Dove One:

This man has no conscience. We all know that some of these fundie ministries are nothing more than cash cows, with endless pleas for people on fixed incomes to give all they have to support “outreach” and soul saving.

Benny Hinn, who’s been exposed as a fraud time and again (famously in 2002 on Dateline NBC), continues the shameless begging for dough to support his high-falutin’ lifestyle. It’s all justified because the sheeple are working through, him doncha know. He needed a new Gulfstream G4SP plane, which he has named, appropriately, Dove One. From his pathetic, unbelievably transparent donation page (my emphasis).

I have enclosed a beautiful photo-filled brochure to explain more about this incredible ministry tool that will increase the scope of our abilities to preach the Gospel around the globe. Now we must pay the remainder of the down payment, and I am asking the Lord Jesus to speak to 6,000 of my precious partners to sow a seed of $1,000 in the next ninety days. And I am praying, even as I write this letter, that you will be one of them! I know that as you obey the Lord, He will open heaven wide and cause a mighty harvest of blessings to descend upon your life and all that you do!

This next step is absolutely vital to everything we are called to do, and it is the only way I can continue to do all God is directing me to do during these prophetic days. There is simply no other possible way for me to keep up with my schedule.

Purchasing this incredible ministry tool is monumental and historic. We have never bought any plane with this much range or capability that will crisscross the globe repeatedly so I can present the Gospel in person to unprecedented millions of precious souls who will accept and come to know our wonderful Jesus as their eternal Savior.

...Your seed of $1,000 or more toward Dove One will reap a harvest for years. The G4SP is built to fly for decades. Imagine the harvest during all those years, and you will be a vital part of that long-term harvest!

Can’t wait for her tell-all that will finally put this man out of business.

by Amanda Marcotte

Via Pharyngula comes this story of the persecution of an 8th grade science teacher in North Carolina, persecution based on the students’ and their parents’ belief that the teacher isn’t a Christian.  Here are the facts: Melissa Hussain was suspended from her job teaching 8th grade science after she complained on her Facebook page about being the victim of persecution from a bunch of ignorant rednecks, which she called a “hate crime”.  This was basically the summation of the complaint that got her in trouble, apparently because that sort of venting from school teachers isn’t allowed.  I’m not sure how I feel about that rule---in general, I think the censorship of employees in our country has gotten way out of hand, so I’m on her side---but I can sort of see why there is such a rule.  But let’s be clear---that this Facebook posting was discovered probably has a lot to do with the general levels of harassment that the citizens of Wake County felt was appropriate to subject Hussain to, because they believe she’s not a Christian. 

The reports I could find on this don’t explain why they think Hussain isn’t a Christian.  It could be her last name---I’d be shocked if that wasn’t a factor---or the fact that she’s a science teacher.  Or maybe she isn’t a Christian and didn’t take pains to hide that fact.  So what?  This country supposedly respects religious freedom, and that counts even for school teachers and even for women and even in North Carolina.  The levels of harassment this woman was subject to are shocking, even for a bunch of ignorant rednecks.  The harassers are admitting that they were provoked by the fact that Hussain taught real world biology that included the theory of evolution.

On her Facebook page, Hussain wrote about students spreading rumors that she was a Jesus hater. She complained about her students wearing Jesus T-shirts and singing “Jesus Loves Me.” She objected to students reading the Bible instead of doing class work.

But Annette Balint, whose daughter is in Hussain’s class, said the students have the right to wear those shirts and sing “Jesus Loves Me,” a long-time Sunday School staple. She said the students were reading the Bible during free time in class.

So, what appears to be happening is that the parents are encouraging their children to disrupt class to harass a woman they believe deserves no respect by refusing to do their schoolwork, and loudly singing hymns.  And when called out on it, they play innocent, acting like open disruption of the classroom is just a legitimate, harmless expression of belief.  This is not all that Hussain was subject to.  Students got into the habit of leaving religious materials on her desk to taunt her.  Postcards with pictures of Jesus were left on her desk so that students could act all butt hurt when she did what you always do when junk mail is left for you, which is throw it away.  Bibles were left on her desk, presumably to create the same kind of faux outrage if she treated them like anything short of magical objects.  After the evolution dust-up, when kids tried to stop the lesson by squawking about Jesus and no doubt freaking out on the teacher, a student left a Christmas card on Hussain’s desk with the word “Christ” underlined.

This behavior, of course, is bullying, and it appears to be encouraged by parents.  Bullying is the absolute favorite tactic of the religious right, from women’s clinic blockades to calling the cops on women who dare admit while pregnant to being anything but as blissed out as a dog suckling her pups.  Men are subject to this kind of bullying, but generally, wingnuts prefer to set their sights on female targets, because they believe women are weak, and like all bullies, they prefer to pick on someone they perceive as weak.

Since I can smell the victim-blaming coming a mile away, I will say that it’s obvious that Hussain didn’t handle this situation with the utmost maturity.  Very young schoolteachers often take students’ misbehavior personally, and then the students smell blood in the water and go nuts.  I definitely saw this happen to teachers when I was a kid, especially in junior high school, when a lot of students turn into complete monsters and enjoy torturing teachers, fellow students, anyone they can act out their angst on.  Maybe some people just aren’t cut out for teaching, if they really can’t control a classroom full of evil little shitheads. 

In addition, Hussain seems to have not really understood what she was up against, in terms of right wing nuttery.  But you have to cut people a break on this---even those of us who’ve been deep in the political shit for a long time now can still have our breath taken away by how vicious wingnuts are, how sadistic, and how much they absolutely love ruining the lives of people guilty of disagreeing with them.  A fight between a decent human being and someone who would kick little old ladies that have fallen down isn’t going to be a fair fight, since the latter is practically begging to fight dirty.  For Hussain, I can’t imagine how frustrating it was to have students act this way with the full support of their parents and the tacit support of the school district.  And she made ill-advised choices that indicate that she didn’t understand the full extent of the problem.  Now that she’s been punished but the harassers have not, perhaps she’ll wrap her head around this. 

The good news is it looks like legal avenues are opening up to people railroaded like Hussain was.  Meanwhile, the rest of us have to really be willing to face up to this---the Christianist right wing teabagger freak out has gotten to the point where these idiots are telling their kids that it’s a good thing to harass their science teachers until they crack. 

In many of my posts (most recently, here), I’ve made the case that sexual desire is more malleable than we think it is. I tend to argue against reparative therapy (the pseudo-science of helping gays become straight, repudiated by every serious professional body of psychologists and psychiatrists) not on grounds of inevitable ineffectiveness but on grounds that it attempts to fix something that isn’t broken. I do think we can shift our desires, and that to a far greater degree than we realize, our desires are less inherent in our make-up and more a response to external influences. I realize that the pendulum of popular thinking is in the opposite direction — the last quarter-century has seen the hegemony of the evolutionary psych crowd, the sort who insist that virtually every aspect of our identity is coded in our genes and driven by our hormones. In the nature v. nurture debate, the trendy thing to believe now is that nature has won in a cakewalk. But — to mix my metaphors recklessly — pendulums do swing back, and I think the turn of the tide approaches.

To that end, this very interesting article in last weekend’s Science Blog: ‘Straight Men, Gay Porn’ and Other Brain Map Mysteries (h/t to reader Jo for sending it along). It opens:

For most of the last century, neuroscientists were convinced that adult brains were pretty much set. Now, recent neuroscience reveals that our brains are surprisingly plastic throughout our lives. By learning techniques that help us sidestep unwanted wiring, we can even direct the re-wiring process—with seemingly miraculous results.

Read on. It’s nice to have something I’ve been saying for a long time validated by some of the latest research. It doesn’t end the argument, but it’s the beginning of a counter-narrative.

by Amanda Marcotte

Did a couple of pioneering obstetricians secretly murder dozens of pregnant women in the name of science?  Lindsay makes the compelling case for “Not bloody likely”.  These kinds of revisionist histories that postulate all sorts of fantastical theories without much evidence are all over the place, with some of the most famous being people who second guess the Jack the Ripper case, or claim Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare, or that Lizzy Borden was framed.  By and large, they are complete bullshit.  and most of them are of little concern.  But this one gave me pause, for the reason that Lindsay alludes to:

This story has all the makings of an anti-science urban legend. Regardless of the quality of the underlying research, this story is going to get embellished in the retelling and used to bash scientific medicine.

Now, when people go off on anti-science hysterics, it’s often really selective, and they usually have ulterior motives.  Global warming denialists, creationists, people who float misinformation about abortion and contraception, and other right wing opponents to sound science tend to care mostly about things that smack of modernism or liberalism.  But there’s more than a whiff of anti-science sentiment on the left, as well (particularly with anti-vaxxers).  In all cases, anti-science thinking tends to flare up dramatically when women’s sexual health is concerned.  And when people are on an anti-science stampede, they are eager to use smears and allegations against perceived “fathers” of a field in order to discredit the field.  For instance, creationists are willing to smear Charles Darwin in order to discredit evolutionary theory, even though biology has grown way past Darwin’s initial theories, and the discrediting of his character, whether true or not, has no relevance to how right he was or what he started.  Similarly, claims that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist---some true, some overblown---don’t really change the facts on the ground about the usefulness, safety, or efficacy of birth control.  And because people who object to contraception and evolutionary theory don’t have science on their side, they resort to replacing arguments with slams on these long-dead people. 

The move towards midwifery is associated more with the left than the right, and that’s actually a misunderstanding of the situation, and one that could have potential problems down the road.  I don’t have a problem with midwifery in the slightest; I think that it is an inexpensive, mostly safe option that could replace a lot of overly expensive birthing situations, if used properly in conjunction with a hospital.  But sometimes there’s more than a whiff of zealotry that occurs when a group is feeling put upon, and nowadays you see women feeling guilt tripped if they want pain relief, or thinking they failed if they have a C-section.  To make the situation even uglier, the right has gotten involved, and bringing with it arguments about what’s “natural” that come straight out of the anti-contraception movement.  If you go to Focus on the Family to watch the video interview with Tim Tebow’s parents that the ad was directing people to, you get more than a hint of this, when Pam Tebow talks about avoiding most prenatal care, with the implication being that it was the best way to respect god’s will.  A lot of people, left and right, are deeply invested in the idea that natural is always better, and those conditions make a direct assault on the practice of obstetrics something that could totally happen.  Even though obstetrics is a major reason that our maternal mortality rate isn’t a lot higher. 

Tucked into a story about these doctors supposedly murdering patients is a theme: that women didn’t die of childbirth before doctors got involved.  And that’s just not true.  It is true that doctors weren’t especially helpful at first, because they didn’t know what they were doing (in many cases they made it worse before it got better), but medical interventions were mostly developed and in many cases are effective because dying in childbirth is very common if women don’t get proper treatment.  I have no idea if smuggling that assumption is was the reason to float this conspiracy theory, but it does concern me that this reading is there.

Not to say that I think that inquiries into the practices of doctors shouldn’t be mounted, but they need to be done with science on your side and an open mind, and there’s no place for methods like referring to this kind of speculation to confuse the issue.