or how to politely (if strongly) disagree
so I read the Womanspace article that has raised a furror on the blogosphere lately…
I didn’t like it, it does seem to rely on the standard gender stereotypes that have been going on since the 1950’s. I can understand why people are up in arms. I can understand the annoyance at the message that seems to be the same old same old stereotype of women and perhaps it shouldn’t be in Nature. There is an excellent critique as to why here by Charlie Jane Anders and here by Chistie Wilcox. There is disagreement and there are reasons and they are rational in their critiques.
However some of the blogosphere reactions to Womanspace are a bit over the top and resort to name calling.
some of the commentary is what I would call personal attacks:
and this in a post entitled ‘Let’s keep it civil’
You know, I didn’t think he was a bastard when this all began, but I could certainly be convinced…
Its fair enough to disagree, and to write a blog about why you disagree, I have read several (as I said above) that set out the case to why the offense, why this shouldn’t be published in Nature and other reasons.
But name calling is bad, it not only is just offensive and over the line, but also makes you loose your point. If you want make a rational point, do exactly that; it might just be me but I don’t understand how ‘goatfucker’ of whatever dimensional size, is a rational construct that adds to any critique.
Sorry, but I really hate the idea that people have the right to publish things whose content is vile and offensive, but that people are stepping over the line when their perfectly legitimate and to the point responses contain a few flowery phrase?
People have the right to publish whatever they like. I just think if you want to make a point something is offensive – then being offensive in response by calling people names, flowery or otherwise, probably isn’t the best way to get your point across
And yet, it is the best way to get your point across. So, you are quite wrong and mbeisen is quite correct.
I wouldn’t agree with that, obviously, but to each their own
You seem to make an assumption that I am somehow out to convince folks who wouldn’t otherwise agree with me. Given that you are probably not a regular reader, I’ll forgive you this misconception and let you know that I stopped trying to “rationally educate” within the confines of arbitrary civility many years ago. If someone can’t look at Ed Rybicki’s continued actions and see how offensive they are, but they are offended by me, then let them be offended. They don’t belong in my well-shod, jasmine-scented, hot science doing, space.
Well said, Muffie.
Thanks, Bootsy!
Ah, Sylvia–the thing is, the blogosphere is the natural home of those who thought that “You’re a poopy head” was the zenith of schoolyard debate.
I found myself in agreement with Paul Anderson’s comment (#30507).
If you want to read a good piece of science fiction which epitomises “Men are from Mars; women are from Venus” try Fritz Lieber’s “Conjour wife” (1943). Then you will realise just how poor Ed Rybicki’s is.
I would also suggest to the editors of Nature, that it might be more appropriate to follow the example of the Worm Runner’s Digest where, after complaints from readers that they couldn’t tell the difference between the scientific papers and satirical articles, the latter were printed upside down at the back of the issue with an inverted rear cover.
And also for those who believe the definition of their status in life was created when they chose to join the high-school debate team, eh, Rpg?
Thank you all for your comments.
There is nothing I can add as I think all of these comments speak for themselves.
Sylvia, Anthony Fejes also wrote a very nice, thoughtful blog post from an avid science fiction fan’s point of view that you might find interesting.
I love Futures. It’s one of the first things I look for when the new Nature issue hits my RSS feed each week. However, among the gems and the average offerings there have always been a few duds. I remember thinking when Womanspace first came out that it was perhaps the biggest dud to date; when the controversy began a few weeks later (after Nature published a couple of letters to the editor about the piece), I instantly remembered how I’d rolled my eyes and shaken my head after reading it. However, I have to say that while I think the reaction has gone too far at times (calling for people to be fired? Really?), some of the critical blogposts subsequently written about the story have made excellent points – and some of Rybicki’s comments on said posts have reflected much more poorly on him than the original story ever did, IMHO. Hopefully once the dust has settled (I’m astonished at how long it’s been kept up in the air!) the lessons learned from the whole endeavour can be reflected upon more privately and more calmly…
I agree with your final paragraph, btw, but I think I understand some of the reasons that other people have for disagreeing. I also know from observation and experience the impossibility of trying to blog about this without causing a flame war…