By SEAN FAIRCLOTH - RDFRS
Added: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:15:30 UTC - An RDFRS Original

On Facebook recently a man touting scientific reasoning called Jenny McCarthy a slut. A Washington Post column of October 18, 2011 compared Jenny McCarthy to Barbie. The Post column was written by a woman and primarily interviewed a woman public health advocate. I’ll deal with the Washington Post shortly -- but first the word slut.

I know nothing of Jenny McCarthy’s sexual habits, and I don’t need to know in order to draw this conclusion: the Facebook-commenter’s language was mean-spirited and sexist. I’ll prove it. Take one George Clooney. I love the guy. (O Brother Where Art Thou – brilliant comic timing; Up In the Air – great comedy, revealing acting.) In real life, Clooney has stated that he has enjoyed the intimate company of a wide variety of women. Yet I hear almost exclusively positive things about Clooney from men and women. That’s a good thing. Clooney’s acting and humanitarian work are justly praised. No one calls Clooney a slut -- despite evidence to support the term were it to be applied in a gender-neutral fashion (I have no corresponding evidence regarding Ms. McCarthy -- and please don’t be a complete jerk and start posting gossip about Jenny McCarthy, crazy-posting-type people, you know who you are).

Sadly I saw an analogy between the way Ms. McCarthy was treated on Facebook and the way two women advocates of science in the Washington Post (of all places) seemed to treat McCarthy.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: Jenny McCarthy is very attractive, which is not a crime. Very attractive people have been found to exert greater influence on opinions, especially attractive celebrities(1). We are not, and probably cannot, change that reality any time soon. If someone like Jenny McCarthy shows up on my TV screen, I’m likely to pause before moving to the next channel. But, having acknowledged that, let’s face up to both biological truths (e.g. my male reaction to McCarthy visually) as well as intellectual truths without blinking –- which leads me to Ms. McCarthy’s absurd – and dangerous – condemnation of vaccination.

In both the Facebook instance and the Washington Post piece, my conclusions on the merits of vaccinations lie with the scientific minded -- but the methods of discourse in both cases make me disappointed in my science-minded “team.” Crying “slut” is, I hope, an obviously sexist -- if all too frequent -- rhetorical move.

But the Washington Post column, though well-intended, slid around tough issues and focused on the visual appeal of Ms. McCarthy. The two women exchanging ideas in the story cry out for our own scientific “Barbie.” While acknowledging the entirely accurate value of attractive women to marketing, I’d suggest a different approach: a stronger and more pointed focus on the merits.

Here are the merits: Jenny McCarthy has endangered many children. I don’t care if she’s smart, dumb, pretty or homely. McCarthy is an outright danger to the children of the world with her groundless attacks on vaccination. Facts force this conclusion.

Oprah enabled McCarthy’s campaign. Oprah must answer for increases in whooping cough -- more measles, more diphtheria, more polio.

Franklin Roosevelt, confined to a wheel chair, led the March of Dimes which helped end the horror of the very polio that struck this brave, kind, and wonderful man. Roosevelt strongly supported scientific innovation – and scientific reasoning. FDR knew lives were at stake. With Oprah’s help, Jenny McCarthy is responsible for the pain and sometimes death of our fellow human beings – often children. It’s a modern horror – growing by the day. Only older Americans remember how very dangerous our world was before modern vaccines – but we may find out again if current trends continue.

Here’s what's even sadder: The Washington Post, and the guy who called Jenny McCarthy a slut, ignored the biggest factor, the most dangerous factor of all when it comes to the anti-vaccination movement. That danger is the excuse offered by God.

Don’t believe me? The facts say otherwise.

The Washington Post piece, all a-quiver about pro- or anti-science “Barbie”, only mentions in brief passing this reality: it is the religious exemption to vaccination that is more widespread and the use of the religious exemption is growing fast.

The “philosophical” exemptions to vaccination permitted in twenty states are wrong indeed -- but that number is dwarfed by the number of states (approximately 48!) that allow for religious exemptions to vaccination. Since “religious” exemptions are as amorphous as “philosophical” exemptions, people, including many who don’t even attend any religious services, use the religious exemption and use it increasingly:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-17-19819928_x.htm

Yet, the religious exemption is far from the primary focus of the Washington Post article. And the religious exemption is more insidious for these reasons:

1. It is far more prevalent despite the disproportionate attention to Ms. McCarthy;


2. People, including the elected officials who pass laws and the media who cover laws, are timid to challenge any justification for any irrationality once the word “religion” is invoked;


3. The religious exemption by definition stands athwart reason: “we ignore vaccines because our interpretation of God allows us to endanger not just our own children – but your child too!” And if someone dares say otherwise, they are “against religious freedom.”


4. If one allows the religious exemption, as is so widely the case, it is damned hard to argue against “philosophical” exemptions that endanger our fellow citizens.

Give Jenny McCarthy some comparative (and minimal) credit. There was one study floating around in the mid part of the last decade that at least purported to associate autism and vaccination. You can understand how people (incorrectly) might be misled by this reasoning during the last decade. Now, even that one study has been overwhelmingly refuted. Foregoing vaccinations is endangering people, especially children. However, at least the McCarthy crowd did tip a hat toward evidence (however lacking in substance).

It is out of deference to religion that the far more widespread vaccination exemption exists. The Washington Post piece ends with this line: “Paging CDC Barbie”.

Cute indeed, as is Jenny McCarthy -- but a much greater danger to our children is not strongly challenged. That danger is religious bias.

And one more thing: There is no religious freedom to endanger children. That’s nonsense. Indeed if there were, those opposing vaccinations for “religious” reasons could simply invoke the First Amendment Religious Freedom clause. Indeed the very reason forty-eight states have the religious exemption for vaccination is exactly because the religious anti-vaccination crowd needs a statute since no religious constitutional right to endanger children exists. It is up to all of us to point out the truth: as dangerous as Jenny McCarthy is, there is an even greater danger of remaining silent in the face of religion when children’s lives are stake.

The Richard Dawkins Foundation US will be speaking and organizing in every state of the union so that we (and that means you) are ready to speak out against this violation of the human rights of children and the many other religiously-based violations of human rights. I would hope that both religious and non-religious people would organize, work together, and speak out openly, regarding this rational and compassionate goal. Secular people will lead the way. We put people first.
1. Kahle , Lynn R. and Homer, Pamela M., (1985) Physical Attractiveness of the Celebrity Endorser: A Social Adaptation Perspective; Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 11 (4):954-961

---

Sean Faircloth, is the Director of Strategy and Policy RDFRS U,S.. He is author of the upcoming book Attack of the Theocrats: How the Religious Right Harms Us All and What We Can Do About It. Advance copies are available in the RDFRS store in the link above. Faircloth served ten years in the Maine legislature. In his final term he was elected Majority Whip by his caucus colleagues. At the Secular Coalition for America Faircloth devised and led the Secular Decade strategic plan. Faircloth speaks widely on separation of church and state, the Constitution, and secular strategy.

Faircloth served as opening speaker for Richard Dawkins' Fall 2011 tour of the United States, and he will do so again in spring 2012.

TAGGED: MEDICINE, RELIGION

---

Tweet