Stephanie Zvan over at Almost Diamonds is talking about a comment made by someone on a post that right now I can’t read because the site keeps timing out. Anyway, this is it, from her post:
Would it be immoral to rape a Skepchick?
Post by Pappa » Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:46 am
Not for sexual gratification or power or anything like that, just because they’re so annoying.
I’m really torn on this one. :dunno:
This is the sort of comment that, basically, I roll my eyes at and ignore, and likely start to think about ignoring the commenter as well. I don’t really say much about it or often bother to reply to it. I would, as you’ve seen, certainly comment on other comments and I think Zvan would like to ask why:
…think about what it means to be one of the people telling the Skepchicks they just need to stop whining about the situation in which the last year has placed them. Think about what it means to be someone who tells the Skepchicks–not the kind of assholes who make this sort of “joke”–that they need to shut up. Then drown any impulse along those lines you might find yourself having in a shallow bath and count that as your contribution for the day toward making the world a little better.
And the reason is … I don’t take that sort of comment seriously. No, I dont mean in the “I don’t think it would really happen” way or that “It’s just harmless fun” way, but to me there’s absolutely no academic content. There’s nothing to talk about there; it seems to be nothing more than a simple, random, idiotic comment. And so no one should take it seriously; it’s saying nothing. And everyone should see that, right?
But for some of these comments that I consider egregious, some people might actually take it seriously, and agree with it, which I can’t really fathom. Why would anyone think that saying that it’s even debatable whether these women should be raped for being annoying is in any way a reasonable argument that someone should take seriously? It’s obvious … isn’t it? But it seems to me that a lot of these comments go over my head not because I’m too misogynist to get it, but because I’m too egalitarian. I don’t think of men and woman as being unequal. I am perfectly willing to work with either as long as they can do the job. As far as I know, I treat them identically; I don’t talk down to women more than I talk down to men. For me, it’s literally “Just the facts”; I’m interested in the arguments, not the person (well, okay, I’m interested in women for other things, although having good arguments does appeal to me [grin]).
So when people introduce these racial or sexual differences, they tend to strike me as being obviously unfounded, and that everyone should see it. And so I’m more likely to attack people to defend them — even by reinterpreting them — than the original commenter, and it’s also why I let them slide. I think they’re just obviously wrong and want to get at the points that are respectable. I don’t get what this comment is supposed to do for the issue, and so don’t really care about it. I guess I treat it more as being mean than as being intelligent, and I’m only interested in the intelligent stuff.
Which may be why I’m an accommodationist.
To be honest, I don’t really have a main point with this; I don’t really know what this all means. Make something up if you really need one, I guess.