Q: When is a door not a door?

A. When it's a jar of angry worms.

That long-running men opening doors for women thing. Or offering them their seat on the bus. Very few people get worked up about this but rather more people seem to assume that they do. I think both areas are yawning pits of social awkwardness but that's because I'm all kinds of socially awkward.

This micro-musing by Peter Hitchens, tweeted by @RopesToInfinity is why I'm thinking through this now.* The key phrase is, "it's so deep it feels like an instinct". For Hitchens, holding a door open for a woman feels like the right thing to do. I'm sure that's what's going on with most men who habitually extend small courtesies to women; it just feels like the done thing. If you want to understand why some people might have a problem with this, ask yourself how it would feel to have a man treat another man in the same way.

Off the top of my head, I can think of three reasons why a man would feel a gut urge to hold a door open for another man**, other than the fact that he got there first. The same reasons apply to giving up your seat.

1. The other person is incapacitated in some way, maybe carrying something or on crutches.
2. The other person is a guest or someone whose comfort you feel in some way responsible for.
3. The other person is of a higher or lower professional standing and you are somehow trying to bridge that gap. You fuss around a superior because you want them to think well of you; you may show extra politeness towards a subordinate because you want to show them that you value them.

There will be others I haven't thought of. Again, I'm not talking about the universal politeness of not letting the door slam in someone's face after you've gone through it. I'm talking about the "deep" "instinct" that dictates that you should try to get to the door first and make a bit of a show of it, because that would be better than them opening the door themselves. With that in mind (and please imagine the situation as giving up your seat if you still don't get where I'm coming from), what does it convey to a woman if, all other factors being equal, a man goes to some extra effort to open a door for her?

1. That the man sees her as in some way incapacitated.
2. That the man sees her as a guest in this location, or feels somehow especially responsible for her comfort.
3. That the man sees some kind of difference in social or professional standing, which needs to be bridged.

The discomfort caused by the first two implications should be fairly clear. With point three, I'd like to emphasise that it doesn't matter which way that difference in status works. Regardless of whether it is yourself or the other person that you (or your deep-seated instincts) are placing on an ever-so slightly higher rung, the problem is that you're acting according to a supposed difference. Whether you'd class it as chivalry or a special favour, something in your brain has gone ACHTUNG: FEMALE and caused you to slightly change your behaviour.

The worry is that if someone displays that "deep", "instinctive" assumption of difference in one situation, and doesn't realise why they're doing it or how it might come across, what else might it affect?
___

*The resulting conversation also led me to this post, which is all kinds of excellent.
** Or a woman for another woman, or any other combination... I'm using the example of two men because it best shows the weirdness of what's going on. I'm not assuming that every reader is male, but I would like you to imagine yourself as male for the purpose of the exercise.

Eight Signs of a Bogus Historical Narrative

On Saturday afternoon, as an attendee of the QED convention in Manchester, I sat through a panel discussion entitled "Is Science the New Religion?". At least, it was intended to be a four-way discussion. Despite the moderator's best efforts, it quite quickly deteriorated into an exasperated and highly entertaining bun-fight between the journalist who made the opening statement (which he has posted as a "speech" here) and the comedian and critical-thinking promoter Robin Ince (who has blogged about the exchange here).

I spent the time playing "Bullshit Narrative Bingo" as the journalist obligingly ran through nearly every one of the tell-tale signs of a bogus fall-from-grace story. These red flags are the narrative tricks I look for whenever I suspect that someone is seeking to rail against the current state of affairs, but knows absolutely nothing about how, when or why it came about, or what can be done to change it. I thought I'd share my observations, because these are useful indications of Bad History, in the same way that incomplete or misinterpreted statistics are indications of Bad Science.

My notes are rather sketchy, and I don't wish to misrepresent the journalist's arguments (much of the fun happened when he was asked to elaborate on the points made in his opening statement) but here are the items I ticked off, and the examples I wrote down at the time. Hopefully, there will be an official recording or transcript available, at which point I will amend anything which I have reported incorrectly.

1. A "look how far we've come" introduction, establishing the speaker's credentials as a lover of the right kind of progress. In this case, it is the gradual extension of voting rights to people who were not considered to have specialised knowledge; In the past, working men and all women were excluded from the political process because it was assumed they did not have the intellectual capacity for it. Nothing to disagree with here, but for an opener, it was suspiciously unrelated to the question.

2. Assumption of novelty, without recourse to actual facts. The argument seemed to be that politicians nowadays lack the moral confidence to argue for their preferred course of action, and so are looking to scientific authority instead (I think this was when the smoking ban was mentioned as an example of when scientific arguments trumped moral ones). In fact, medical research and scientific developments were used by politicians back in the Victorian era and almost certainly earlier.

3. Description of a previously unbroken tradition. I can't remember if the number given was 2000 or 3000 years of politics being driven by morality and a sense of responsibility, but either way, this would be something of an oversimplification. Quite often in a bogus narrative, it is the 1950s which is described as the pinnacle of any such trend, and therefore as a golden age destroyed by the excesses of the 1960s. Which brings us to...

4. Call for a return to a more 'natural', 'traditional' or 'healthy' state. When asked, repeatedly for some indication of what scientists should do instead, one of the answers given was, "We need a healthy public space". I have no idea what this means, exactly, but who could possibly argue against health of any kind?

5. Magic keywords. Pro-tip: If you feel that your argument is looking a little thin in places, or that your audience may have forgotten that you're on the Right Side, sprinkle in some references to undeniably positive qualities such as "individual freedom" and "moral autonomy", even though these have little to do with the matter being discussed.

6. Unsubstantiated turning point. My recollection of this part is hazy, as there was a lot of grumbling, shouting and laughter from the audience and the argument seemed too ridiculous for anyone to make... but I think it was argued that since the 1970s, we've stopped pushing for economic growth because we've prioritised science-led environmental concerns instead. There may also have been something about a recent hatred of industrialisation around the same time because 'science' makes us worry about public health? In any case, the golden age of responsible, morality-based politics at some point changed to the current technocratic tyranny. Evidence for when and how this is supposed to have come about was not provided.

7. Ignoring other, obvious factors. In this case, I was surprised that nobody mentioned the development of the environmental movement, which is not known for having completely overlapping aims with all scientists.

8. Accusations.Veiled (or not) suggestion that the other side's argument is very like racism. From what I can remember, arguing that politicians should understand the probable impact of their policies (and gain this understanding via solid, scientifically-tested research) was compared to the introduction of tests designed to exclude minority voters in the American South. Understandably, this did not go down well.

All of this means that the only thing preventing me from shouting "house" was a lack of mention of the Nazis, and a reference to "authoritarian governments since Labour", combined with the racism comparison, came pretty damn close.

___

For some further reflection on the panel: http://geekdom.daphshez.com/2013/04/i-went-to-manchester-and-all-i-got-you.html

This is how easy it is. No more excuses.

There have been some delighted reactions to the news that a particular toy company has released a catalogue which does not perpetuate the common gender divisions: girls learning how to be good mothers and home-makers, while boys get all the really cool stuff. There have also been the very predictable rumblings from people claiming this is all very unnecessary and PC and can't it just go away already so normal people don't have to wrap their heads around the disturbing notion that girls and boys may occasionally - of their own volition - play the same games with the same lumps of plastic.

Bloggers and websites such as Pink Stinks do a great job of showing just how widespread this ridiculous, arbitrary division of pretend items is, but pointing out examples of such an omnipresent problem can give the impression that the change being called for would involve a massive restructuring of whole industries. Some of the arguing I've done on forums recently has been against people who think that businesses need to follow these established marketing patterns, or risk losing customers by being too radical, too political, or just plain confusing. In fact, this stuff is really bloody easy, and happens all the time without exploding anyone's heads.

Here's one example that struck me a while ago, and I'm hoping you guys will suggest some more. In this advert for a building society, a man is greeted at the door by a boy and a girl. They both fly down the hallway with imaginary rocket packs. The little girl's rocket pack is the same size as the boy's and nothing about it is pink. It's just a little girl, playing at being in space. This ground-breaking destruction of the traditional, natural, universally-accepted-except-by-feminists gender roles in space - this utopian vision of sexless childhood - is entirely incidental to the product being sold. If the people doing marketing for a bank account can do this without fanfare, why can't the toy companies?

As a bonus, this is a cartoon in which a woman and a little girl get very excited about dinosaurs. It didn't strike me as at all unusual until I was writing this post.

What's the Evidence-Based Cure for Sexism?

For improved gender equality, swallow one

capsule twice a day, with or after meals.

Seriously though, does anyone have a clue about this yet? Despite many centuries of discussion about the best way to organise a society composed of examples of two distinct physical types, we don't seem to be getting much closer to a definitive answer. The jury's still out on whether medieval codes of chivalry existed to protect women or to restrict the spectrum of possible gender roles. The debate still rages over whether women's suffrage groups achieved their aims or if World War One did the trick either in tandem with or in spite of some branches' tactics. Anyone who's tried to have a conversation either online or in person about the exact nature, history, aims, successes and possible continuing relevance of 'feminism' will have experienced the feeling that they're trying to pin a liquid tail on a gaseous donkey while sinking into a mire of rapidly-thrown shit. That's the feeling I get as a woman, discussing something I supposedly have an innate understanding of; I pity any man trying to make an informed and well-intentioned contribution. If we're ever going to rationally assess the best way to rid the world of sexism in all its forms, as it adversely effects the lives of both men and women, then we need to be aware of and try to eliminate those barriers to debate which have left us going round in angry, shouty circles. Particularly for those of us who call ourselves skeptics or rationalists, the principles of evidence-based reasoning must be respected:

RULE ONE: YOU ARE ALMOST CERTAINLY WRONG.
We as humans are very bad at assessing what is important, at accurately weighing up the relative merits of arguments, and at forming truly unbiased opinions. Our personal experience or that of people we know is not sufficient basis for an opinion; on the other hand, personal anecdotes make up most of the data we have regarding the effects of sexism. We need to bear in mind at all times that we are having this debate within a heavily flawed social order, using language which is not ideal for the purpose, referring to a woefully inadequate amount of reliable information. Everyone in the conversation, including you, will be wrong in some way. The point is therefore not to win the argument, but to become slightly less wrong together.

RULE TWO: FOCUS ON THE INFORMATION, NOT HOW IT IS PRESENTED.
It is not possible to have a productive conversation while simultaneously trying to change the way in which the conversation can be had. It is therefore best to assume that everyone in the conversation is trying to work towards better mutual understanding, no matter how much you may take issue with the way they express particular contributions or questions. Aim to criticise less, while both requesting and providing more context for what is being said.

RULE THREE: DO NOT IGNORE INCONVENIENT INFORMATION.
Men can be victims of sexism too. More importantly, almost nobody needs to be told this at any point of the conversation and almost nobody claims otherwise. It would however be fair to say that men tend to experience it less often and in less severe forms than women do, and that they therefore don't suffer quite the same cumulative effects that 'everyday sexism' can have over time. That said, the gender of the speaker is not a reliable indicator of the validity of their opinion, or their ability to understand and relate to your argument. I'm one of those lucky females who has not experienced anything like the level of sexism most women in the world are facing. Reading the examples collected by the Everyday Sexism project has made me realise how much I have been happily spared, by chance alone. I think that makes me less able to effectively relate to an argument about the nature and effects of sexism than a man who has experienced it or any other kind of discrimination. For example, I can't recall ever having handed my card to a waiter, only to have him hand the card reader to a male companion; if this ever has happened, I probably put it down to a lapse in concentration rather than conscious or subconscious sexism. I have never personally experienced the feelings of frustration and supposed dependence that this could cause when encountered often, but I expect that a male who has been frequently made aware that society as a whole expects him to pay for female companions would be every bit as keen to see attitudes change. It is easy to both over-exaggerate the significance of individual incidents, and to disregard them if they happen to a member of a group which suffers less discrimination on the whole. Both of these tendencies, and the ways in which we try to compensate for them, serve to skew our understanding and impair our progress to an evidence-based solution.

RULE FOUR: BE WARY OF GENERALISATIONS.
Every example, however small or easily dismissed, is part of a larger, interconnected structure. Unfortunately, trying to treat every symptom of sexism could, hypothetically, make it harder to cure the underlying disease. As with the arguments about maintaining herd-immunity to diseases through universal vaccination or preventing the overuse of antibiotics, it is very difficult to tell people to suffer minor side-effects so that a more serious but less personal problem can be solved. I try not to look or sound annoyed when asked at a beer festival if I'd prefer something more 'girly' because I think that happily and enthusiastically chatting to the server about my preferences is more likely to have a positive, lasting effect on their assumptions. That's how I aim to approach most disagreements (though I usually fall far short of that goal) and, being human, I think my strategy is probably best. However, I don't blame other people for not smiling when told to do so by a stranger for the tenth time in a morning, or being all sweetness and light when groped on the bus, or staying perfectly calm while being told that they are the wrong gender for their chosen profession. Somehow it should be possible to establish whether a calm, positive approach within the overall public debate is more effective, without denying people the right to defend themselves or to release their frustration when they feel that the situation they are in at that moment demands it.

RULE FIVE: AVOID EMOTION.
Perhaps more than any other area of debate, effective discussion of sexism stamps all over things which are personal and emotive. Everyone involved needs to be aware of this; if you or the person you are talking to is clearly getting upset, then take a step back, clearly indicate that you are doing so, and only carry on once you have re-established the aim and parameters of the conversation. Be aware that accusations of being emotional are commonly misused to dismiss people's opinions, but also be aware that there will likely be some truth to the accusation. Think I'm being unfair? Go and read RULE ONE again.

And, perhaps the most important rule for all debates:

RULE SIX: ANSWER ONE QUESTION AT A TIME.
Data collected for one specific purpose cannot be used for another purpose entirely unproblematically. Arguments put forward by the defence in a specific rape trial are just that. The character flaws of Emmeline Pankhurst are just that. By all means have a discussion about whether a particular feminist has argued a particular point in the best possible way, or discuss the flaws in anti-sexist discourse as a whole, but make it absolutely clear at the outset which question you are answering and with what data. Don't be the person who tries to turn a call for boys to feature in adverts for toy prams into a discussion about the child support system. Don't assume that someone's opinion about the VAT on sanitary towels or their attitude towards nudity on Page Three is indicative of their stance on equal rights as a whole.

The success of all fields of research rests on a cycle of collecting and weighing up accurate information, finding reliable answers to small questions, establishing likely rules and models to answer big questions, and testing these rules with specific examples. Zoom in, zoom out, and zoom in again; all the while maintaining a clear idea of what you are trying to achieve. There's no reason why the problem of sexism can't be treated in the same way, apart from the fact that everyone involved, as established in RULE ONE, is always mostly wrong and is really bad at being told why.

Soundtrack to Skeptical Stuff

Songs chosen due to title, content or sheer bloody awesomeness. Further suggestions more than welcome, unless you suggest that I may like to get on with some proper work. If you're on Spotify then they're all here:  http://spoti.fi/PseB0d.

Batman Soundtrack: Descent Into Mystery
Lemon Jelly: Spacewalk
The Lemonheads: Mrs. Robinson
New York Dolls: Dance Like A Monkey
The Hives: Hate To Say I Told You So
The Vines: Highly Evolved
The Black Angels: Science Killer
Television: Prove It
Devo: Praying Hands
Supertramp: The Logical Song
Eels: Mystery Of Life
Miike Snow: God Help This Divorce
Stars: I Died So I Could Haunt You
Bombay Bicycle Club: Ghost
Primal Scream: Movin' On Up
Lord Of The New Church: New Church
Queen: It's A Kind Of Magic
Arrogant Worms: Jesus' Brother Bob
Flight Of The Conchords: Robots

On not throwing poo in the Twitter zoo

Fully aware of how oversensitive I was being, I've spent much of this afternoon frustrated, in tears, and on the phone*, because two people I'm friends with in real life, and whose general well-being I care about very strongly, were having the mother of all punch ups right there on my Twitter feed. It doesn't matter who started it; they're both in the wrong for having an argument on Twitter in the first place. Here's why:

• Twitter is still a very small world. That person you just called a cunt, and invited to commit suicide? There's a good chance that someone following you knows them and will be more than a little upset at what you've said.
• Twitter is public in the worst possible way. It's true that most people won't pay any attention to what you've said and it's almost possible to assume that you'll only piss off followers you were best off without anyway. However, the only people who will see the whole argument are those who follow you both, and they might not want a screen full of their friends hurling abuse at each other.
• Twitter is not the context. Everyone sees their own stream and their statements are not taking place in the same environment as your statements. Twitter's weird in that the pool of people whose comments we read and respond to, particularly indirectly, is not the same as the pool of people who read our commentary. Brevity means that we can't introduce our remarks by explaining what prompted them. Anything anyone says is likely influenced by a lot of other stuff you've not seen, and it's not for you to judge whether their irony, sarcasm, hyperbole, self-deprecation, or outright venting was appropriate or not.
  
• A lot of that anger you're feeling is because someone who doesn't know you has had the barefaced cheek to misjudge and insult you. Their anger is most likely rooted in the same feeling. The mere fact that you're in vague communication with them means you have a lot in common with them compared to the majority of the population, so refrain from projecting too much hatred onto them.

If you're reading this, you're probably a friend of mine. I only tend to befriend, follow and interact with people I think are good, sensible people: left-leaning, human-rights supporting, critical-thinking, humourous, self-aware people who'd go miles out of their way to help a stranger. They're also mainly a bit messed up, selectively thin-skinned, provocative and prone to very dark days. You know, humans. So be nice to each other or I'll bang your bloody heads together.

If, like me, you struggle to keep you cool and maintain a sense of perspective during online disagreements, stick a bit of Bill Hicks on the wall by your screen:

"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."

*Essentially trying to do this, but without the superpowers: http://xkcd.com/438/

Suggested supplementary training for ticket-inspection staff

To whom it may concern,

I wish to bring to your attention a recent encounter with Virgin-affiliated ticket-checking staff working at Preston Station, following my journey on a Northern Rail service. In doing so, I hope to make staff at both Northern Rail and Virgin aware of the levels of rage they are conspiring to evoke in customers unlucky enough to have to negotiate between them.

At 8.55am on Wednesday 24th August, myself and around 40 other passengers boarded Northern Rail's Colne service at Ansdell and Fairhaven. Railcard in hand, I was ready and waiting to pay for an open return to Manchester. Anyone familiar with this service will know that there is no means of buying or collecting tickets at the station (or at the next two stops) and that during the summer in particular, this hourly service can reach sardine-tin levels of overcrowding. Unsurprisingly and despite his best efforts, the conductor on this train was unable to sell every passenger a ticket by the time the train reached Preston, where most of us disembarked.

It transpired that the unsmiling, bouncer-like ticket inspection staff at Preston were not at all familiar with the hourly train from Ansdell and Fairhaven, as first evidenced by their inability to find "Ansdell" on their machines. Never having found myself mid-journey without a ticket before, I assumed that the staff were stationed between platforms partly as an auxiliary means of selling honest passengers coming from unstaffed platforms on overcrowded trains the correct tickets. Apparently not. Apparently the job of these enforcement personnel is first and foremost to make people without tickets - whatever the reason - feel as though they were about to be hauled into custody at any moment.

I was told, sniffily, that railcard discounts could not be applied to tickets bought "after you've set off", by which I assume was meant "after one leg of the journey has been completed". Unwilling to add another 50% to my travel costs due to my own honesty in the light of circumstances beyond my control, I explained the situation again, emphasising that this really was the earliest time I could have bought a ticket. Taking on the tones of the strictest of Victorian schoolmistresses , the woman in question told me that it was my responsibility to find the conductor, wherever he may be on the train. She repeated this statement at least four more times, despite my increasingly vivid accounts of the conductor's valiant passage down the train, pausing in his epic task of supplying tickets only when called upon to open the train doors. No, it was still my responsibility to procure from him a ticket, presumably via some kind of death-match competition against other passengers. Regarding her manner, I cannot remember having been subjected to such tones of belittlement and assumed guilt since I was last falsely accused of eating in class at primary school.

A further suggestion from the front-line, friendly face of Virgin customer service: "You should have found the conductor on the platform when you got off here". If this is standard practice, and I have to say that I've never seen it attempted, I think we may have identified a major cause of those delays you're all so keen to cut down on.

I had tried my best to remain calm and polite throughout this exchange, but I fear I was only saved from paying the penalty (for that is what the extra 50% most certainly is) by the fact that a far more openly enraged (and smartly-dressed) ex-banker next to me was having the same argument regarding her daughter's fare. Maybe if my t-shirt had featured "Mature Student and Ex-Teacher" in an imposing font, rather than a cartoon picture of an owl, I'd have been treated with less obvious contempt. On the other hand, maybe the supposed social standing and lung capacity of the passenger should have no bearing on how they are treated.

I am long beyond hoping that the overcrowding on my local branch-line will one day cease to be a problem. If, however, you are to continue with the system of having staff from one company check that passengers travelling with another company have bought a ticket when they should have done, then those staff should be familiar with the conditions on that route. I therefore recommend a "gauntlet day" to be added to whatever training ticket inspection staff currently receive. This will consist of the following:

• Trainees should be deposited at one of the unstaffed stations on the Blackpool South line, preferably coinciding with the Pleasure Beach's opening weekend, the Illuminations switch-on ceremony, or a local derby at Bloomfield Road, and instructed to purchase a ticket from the conductor before the train reaches Preston. In the interests of health and safety, helmets and knuckle-dusters should be supplied.

• If unsuccessful, they will be required to accost the conductor on the platform and purchase the required number of tickets from him or her, in the face of those passengers still on the train, whose journey they are now delaying.

• To ensure that this training exercise conforms as closely as possible to the real-life user experience, trainees will be expected to figure out this final step on their own, as there are no signs in either train or station - or, I suspect, anywhere outside of certain ticket-inspectors' imaginations - indicating that this is an acceptable course of action.

Of course I do not expect my suggested remedy to be adopted immediately. In the meantime, I would like to have official confirmation that I should have either jumped in ahead of other customers on the train, or held up the conductor on the platform, in order to avoid paying a much higher fare a few metres further into the station.

Yours faithfully,

V