How’s it going?
This isn’t going well. It’s going badly. It could and should have been a minor thing that lasted about ten minutes and then ended. Instead it’s still going, and the way it’s going is badly.
Alerted by a comment by someone at Abbie’s post, I listened to about 20 minutes of something called Citizen Radio yesterday because it had a talk with Rebecca Watson about All That. I gave up before they got to the talk because I was bored beyond endurance by the hosts’ dialogue, but at the very beginning one of them (Kilkenny or Kilstein, I don’t know which) gave a quick summary of All That, which included casually calling Richard Dawkins “a rich white man” or possibly “a rich old white man.” a dumb rich guy.
Ok, I’m off this train, I thought.
And I am. I’ve soaked up more background since I got on the train, so I was already wondering where I would be if I got off at the next stop, and then that stupid vulgar throwaway line sealed the deal. A rich white man, for christ’s sake. Watson is white too; so what? Is she sort of honorary not-white because…well just because? And as for rich – he got rich by writing brilliant science education books that sold millions and then writing an atheist best seller! Would we rather he hadn’t?
And, unfortunately, that line came from Rebecca’s post about the whole thing.
And then…Chris Mooney said he is interviewing her for the next Point of Inquiry.
She’s a fast rising star in the skeptic movement, and one who–as many already know–has recently been at the center of a huge controversy involving how some in the skeptic/atheist movement treat the concerns of women.You can read about it here, and Phil Plait has the full back story: Suffice it to say that it involves not only what one skeptic man (now infamously) said to Watson in an elevator at 4 in the morning, but how Richard Dawkins then dove in and minimized the incident.
We’ll be discussing this and the lessons to be taken from it–as well as Watson’s important work to spread skepticism and, especially, to make the skeptic movement a more welcoming place for women.
Yes no doubt we will, and thus we find ourselves right back where we were two years ago when Unscientific America came out and several people said it spent far too much time (that is, any) on blog quarrels. This is that all over again, and it’s even the same damn blog.
It looks to me as if a lot of people are forgetting exactly what Dawkins did – he made a handful of short comments on a blog. Is this seriously so newsworthy that it merits whole podcasts and interviews? What next, Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, The Daily Show? We’re talking about three comments on a fucking blog.
It’s trivial. Ok? Trivial. I say that in cold blood, as one who writes a blog herself. Nothing I write at my place is worth Serious Media Attention, and neither is anything anyone else says there. The same goes for PZ’s blog, except for the fact that he has so many readers that his does kind of count in some way. But not this way (and I think he’d agree with me).
I still think what Dawkins said was too brusque and also mostly wrong – but I also think it was insignificant in the great scheme of things.
And it’s not going well.
Zombies, Ophelia… think of the zombies!!
We might as well discuss zombies, because this issue has become a rotting, shambling corpse that would benefit greatly from a bullet in the head. We’re far beyond the issue, or reaction to the issue, or Dawkins’s reaction to the issue or reactions to reactions… this is like a 20th generation bootleg of a Led Zep concert that’s so degraded that you can’t tell ‘Black Dog’ from ‘Kashmir’. Everybody needs to just stop, because at this point it is turning all of us into zombies, reflexively grabbing and biting at each other, and chewing up the same points over and over.
Speaking of zombies, I’d like to recommend a book. Feed by Mira Grant. It is about zombies and blogging and science. I read it while I was on vacation, and it was really seriously awesome.
I have commented very little on this story, but I share your concern over the continuing pursuit of the trivial. Not that the issue is trivial, but concentrating so obsessively on Dawkins’ blog comment, as though this were at the heart of the issue, is hopelessly to miss the point. I think Dawkins, as well as many other men, simply do not understand (and perhaps cannot understand) how vulnerable women feel in the kind of situation described — in an elevator, at the end of a long day, alone, with a relative stranger. That men do not understand this is a serious reflection on men’s failure to pay attention. If you look at the stats in Britain, for example, of women who have been assaulted, compared to the number who have been charged, and the even smaller number who have been convicted, this is a problem of enormous proportions, and, while I think Dawkins of all people should be able to see this, I suspect that his own surroundings make it rather less likely that he will think of it as truly serious. But this should not be about Dawkins or about scepticism or atheism or any other thing. It’s about the way that women are casually regarded in most societies, and how large a change of consciousness is required in order to bring about conditions of equality, in which women will not be harassed and victimised, or made to feel that they are, by insensitive men, merely because they are women.
It’s worth reading a few of the comments over at Mooney’s announcement about the podcast. Even some of his staunchest supporters are kind of like, “What the fuck, Chris?” heh…
I think you may have misheard. That or I’m not up to that part yet.
All true, Eric…although for me it’s actually not so much about feeling vulnerable as it is about feeling either 1. disregarded because not hawt or 2. regarded only because hawt. It’s about being seen as fundamentally about one’s sex appeal, whether its presence or its absence.
That’s one reason I like doing this, of course. It’s just obviously not about that, here.
I kind of refuse to feel vulnerable. (I think Rebacca probably does too; I think a lot of us do.) I may find myself being vulnerable at times, but I refuse to feel it. It’s degrading.
Anyway despite the stipulations, all true, but three comments on a blog are a terrible site to situate the discussion. A full article, yes, but blog comments, no. And now if it’s going to spread more and more and more and more – no. Just stop.
julian…what? What are you quoting? You can’t be quoting anything here, because that’s the first appearance of the phrase on the page.
I do have to say, while I agree this is getting really out of hand, I’m not particularly inclined to be too critical towards Watson and others making a stink about this, and <a href=”http://nojesusnopeas.blogspot.com/2011/07/three-reasons-why-gnus-especially.html”>here’s why</a>. It at least gets people thinking about these issues, you know?
It does seem to be getting really out of hand at this point though… blah.
I’ve been mulling this over for the past 2 weeks now and I think there is some sexism within the atheist/skeptical/humanist community that needs some addressing. Is something more going on here? Is R. Watson promoting herself as an upper tier atheist at R.Dawkins expense?
Are you thinking I said someone said that on Citizen Radio? I didn’t. I said rich white man, or possibly old rich white man. (Or it may have been guy, not man.)
This whole thing has become indistinguishable from either a parody or a deliberate attempt by enemies of reason to make a lot of people look very silly.
You have my appreciation and admiration for the effort you have made to remain a calm voice throughout this mess. I don’t think anything can be done to calm things down now though, It will have to burn itself out, somehow.
Sorry. Wasn’t very clear. Listening to that Citizen Radio piece and I think you misheard ‘rich old white guy.’ What what’s his name, Jamie Kilstein, said was ‘dumb rich guy.’
James, I do know, and to some extent that’s what I was thinking at first, along with the fact that what Richard said really was a clumsy way to make the point (and the point is debatable anyway). But now…I’m thinking it’s not a good way to get people to think about these issues. Not least the flaws in the “boo sexism” side are giving truckloads of ammo to the “wimmin iz all stoopid whiny bitches” side.
Oh, dumb rich guy – well that’s even more intelligent and thoughtful! Jeez. Thanks, I’ll update the post.
I soooo appreciate your telling it to just. go. away.
I agree wholeheartedly!
We should start making a list of the next people to take up Rebecca’s cause. Michael Ruse, Madeleine Bunting, Chris Hedges, the pope, the archbishop of Canterbury…
I’m just really hesitant to take that position because it feels too much like the things we always criticize about the gnubashers. Of course, I have stopped following the more extreme voices on the issue on either side, so maybe it’s way worse than I am imagining, heh…
One of the reason I’ve almost ignored this issue despite being a recidivist gobshite is that there is no reasonable position to take that a myriad of other commenters wouldn’t take exception to. This really should be a non-issue and the fact that RD is in the frame only adds glamour not substance. Atheism needs to be sensitive to human rights issues, Gay, feminist, racist ,ableist, otherist in general. If we are looking for rational humanistic approaches to society we must not play the communitarian card and back our own favourites, that’s the religionist’s perogative and it sucks. We are all individuals, with individual rights. I don’t want to be propositioned in an elevator by a stranger at four in the morning either, it’s not only a feminist issue (although it is a feminist issue).
Allowing atheism to be polarised by factional interests is silly, we will become subsumed in an argument we are not big enough to resolve. Atheism is the agenda, human rights is the agenda, secularism is the agenda…move on…please.
When I saw Watson’s video, I totally understood why she’d feel uncomfortable. When I saw how she threw McGraw (I think that’s here name) under the bus, I thought that was rude. When I read what Dawkins wrote, I took it in the context of the elevator Guy suddenly becoming a secret rapist.
I really, really wish those involved would take a deep breath and look for ways their own actions might have been wrong. I don’t want to hear any more about this faux controversy.
Ophelia, I totally understand why you’d be tired of the subject, but the Citizens’ Radio thing actually wasn’t a bad interview. The brief discussion of it on the recent Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe podcast was pretty good, too. In both cases, the “EG was 100% right and Dawkins was right to say so” viewpoint was not represented, so adherents of that view will be disappointed, but they weren’t foaming-at-the-mouth exercises in rabble-rousing either.
As someone who is disappointed in Dawkins’ comments, I have to give him credit for (somewhat belatedly) obeying the First Law of Holes.
Oh, and the Mooney thing doesn’t really trouble me. Watson doesn’t strike me as the type to go along with any spin about evil angry divisive Gnu Atheists — especially considering that some of her closest supporters on this issue have been PZ and Amanda Marcotte.
SM – well what about the dumb rich guy remark though? The interview was much better than that was it?
(Trouble is, I couldn’t see any Fast Forward button and I couldn’t stand listening to the hosts jabber rebarbatively about nothing for one more second – I heard way too much of it as it was.)
So do I.
Yes, the first 20 minutes or so of their program is what they call their “douchebag buffer” where they basically ramble to get rid of all the people who can’t handle their opinions :)
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…so stupid empty vamping decorated with lotso hipster swearing drives away only the bad people but leaves all the swell people eager to hear the rest?
Yeah I don’t think so. They sound boring and amateurish and thus narcissistic. (Listen to us! We’re boring! We didn’t prepare anything! We’re just riffing in a would-be hip way, aren’t we adorable?)
oh dear.
Er, I think you can download their podcast via itunes and then fast forward all you want. But I may be wrong.
We had Jamie Kilstein do an opening comedy act for PZ Myers in DC on “Rapture Day” for a CFI DC event and he was quite well-received by a sold out crowd of ~250 and we’d be happy to have Jamie again in the future. Likewise with PZ, but that goes without saying!
Finally done with that.
The actual conversation with Ms Watson starts at 25 minutes in (nothing gets said for the first 2 minutes) and lasts about 23 minutes. It’s not a bad interview but they didn’t spend much time discussing privilege or how it can affect our world views (Ms Kilkenny only mentions it once referring to Richard Dawkins world view and how he sees the world differently then Ms Watson would) Shame.
Perhaps I don’t understand what’s going on. As I understand it, these are the facts:
1) While in an elevator at an atheist conference Rebecca Watson was asked by a man to go to his room for coffee at 4 am.
2) She declined and nothing else happened between the two of them.
3) She later said that she felt creeped out by the guy and asked guys not to hit on her on an elevator at 4 am.
4) A huge shit-storm of commentary broke out with an incredible amount of polarization going on, including comments by one of the more prominent people in the atheist community. (It’s almost as bad as politics from what I can tell.)
Do I have these facts right? Or am I far out of touch with what’s going on?
Assuming that I have the facts right, I can see why Ms. Watson felt ill at ease with regards to the invitation, but is this really that big a deal? I would not be surprised if the guy wanted sex with her; she’s an attractive woman, both physically and mentally. The man in question may have been socially inept as many young men are and felt that the elevator was the only chance he’d get to talk to her alone thus solving the dual problem of getting her attention and not having to ask in a potentially embarrassing situation; i.e. failing at asking a girl out in front of others. Maybe he should have shown better judgement in timing or locale but what other locale and time would he have had to ask?
I’m not defending this man; I don’t know him, I don’t know what he looks like or even his name. (Nor do I care.) I’m just trying to figure out why all this is so important. I see nothing wrong with Ms. Watson saying she was uncomfortable in the situation. I have a problem with all the crap that’s going on surrounding such a simple thing. It should have been, “This happened to me and I was uncomfortable. If you find yourself in this position with me, please don’t invite me for coffee in your room,” and that should have been the end of it.
If I’m wrong about my assessment of the facts, please let me know.
Simon – but that was an act, yes? He actually worked out an act. This was the opposite of that. That’s why I didn’t like it.
I dunno, maybe this is that generation thing Bruce S mentioned the other day. Maybe it’s dinosaur-like to be bored by endless empty riffing.
So do I.
Is this the moment where I declare that I share a metaphorical position with Polly O’?
I’m not sure how to deploy that meme yet.
This issue is trivial I guess. The few times I’ve waded in, all I’ve done is upset someone whom I wouldn’t want to upset I’m sure. I guess a small thing is that I’ve had my consciousness raised to how women see things a tiny bit. That said, I’m probably still indistinguisable from your standard model boorish male.
Was that in response to me? If so, I wouldn’t really call Kilstein’s standup comedy an “act”, more of a “routine” (so probably more rehearsed and less impromptu). My impression of Jamie is that what you see is what you get. If you see him do stand-up and speak to him later there’s no “persona” or anything like that.
Also, his wife Allison writes for The Nation (online and in print): http://www.thenation.com/authors/allison-kilkenny/
@Vernon,
The point, I think, is that this is a microcosm of a larger problem is skeptic/atheist meetups: apparently, a lot of the guys are creepy. Is this a world-shattering issue? Obviously not. But it seems to me that if you’re interested in these sorts of meetups (I’ve never been to one myself, though I might be interested sometime), then you should be interested in making them as good as possible. And acting like assholes to women that come is a sure way to lower the quality of the meeting, because you’ll be driving away nearly half of your potential members.
Also, even if you’re just interested in asking women out, well, it would be a good idea to know how to do it without being a creep, wouldn’t it? Though just wanting women there to be asked out is, in itself, pretty damned sexist.
Okay, I had sort of been avoiding digging into the McGraw aspect of this issue (too much drahmaz already) but I finally did — and yeah, that’s kinda fucked up.
@Vernon,
As I just brought myself up to speed on, a side shitstorm erupted after another (female) blogger expressed a view point similar to what you said, being critical of Watson and saying that it wasn’t really feminism… which is okay; I think maybe that’s not really getting the broader issue, but there is room for reasonable disagreement here… and then Watson presented that blog post, with author’s name attached, at a keynote speech at an atheist conference, with the author in attendance, as an example of misogynist thinking, in the same part of the talk that examined some pretty vile pro-rape YouTube comments.
So we have on one side the Watson/Dawkins issue, on which I basically side with Watson (that Elevator Guy acted inappropriately, and that Dawkins was being a total ass when he mocked Watson’s concerns about it), and on the other side the Watson/McGraw issue, in which it seems pretty clear to me that Watson did something pretty shitty to a fellow skeptic and feminist.
Ophelia — I may be blurring the CR podcast interview with the SGU segment (listened to both last night), but my recollection is that there wasn’t a lot of beating up on Dawkins, and not a lot of talk about “rich white males.” On at least one of the shows, Watson was asked why she thought Dawkins wasn’t getting it, and her response was more along the lines of “I don’t know what he was thinking” than “because he’s a privileged white male bozo.”
Anyway, like I said, neither interview is exactly hard-hitting or even-sided, but I think the temperature was pretty moderate and the hyperbole kept under control.
They seemed pretty kind to Richard Dawkins on Citizen Radio. One of the host (Jamie Kilstein. Can’t think of him as a Mr.) mentions how Dawkins moved him from being agnostic to atheist. The only really ‘negative’ remark came from Ms Watson who argued his dismissal of the issue sort of gave an excuse for many atheist men who might have ‘gotten it’ to not get it.
I don’t even necessarily think they should be “kind” to him (or to anyone) – but “dumb rich guy”…honestly.
I agree with Polly-O!
I’m going to take a vacation under a rock for a week or two…
There is virtually no one with a starring role in this entire conflagaration–with the possible exception of you, Ophelia–who has not said something that was either stupid or disappointing. Mooney interviewing Watson is like Jane Hamsher making common cause with Grover Norquist. A pox on all their damn houses.
Fortunately, Marta, I don’t have a starring role, so the kind disclaimer wasn’t needed (but I love it all the same).
sometimes I feel like I’m watching a movie script by Monty Python based on a rewrite by Kafka of a story by Gogol (or is it Grand-Guignol?) My only comment is “Don’t we all have real issues to discuss?” With Mooney jumping on it (and late as usual – after he’s figured out his angle on it) it now becomes nothing more than exploitative self-promotion. Let’s not give it more oxygen.
I predict a further breakdown of modest, considered skepticism, and more zealot-driven balkanization of the atheist ummah into knee-jerk identity groups. We have a noticeable paucity of theories at work in our discussion of the “meaning” in all this pie flinging, which frustrates and saddens me, as I can persoanlly spin plausible interpretations and quirky perspectives all day, from any point of view you arbitrarily choose. If intuition and personal anecdotes are the only criteria for such speculations, anyone’s backside may be as abundant a cornucopia of profound insights as anyone else’s.
Example off the top of my head: “Maybe this whole puke-fest really just reflects a nagging insecurity in the kinds of people who go to conventions, who spend too much time on the web, and in the celebrities who depend upon them. Why hang it on atheists/skeptics/humanists as such?”
We can twist the significance of events into any shape we want, with sufficient intellectual ingenuity and insufficient self-restraint. But as good critical thinkesr we already know this pitfall and are innoculating against it, right? I think everyone should sit down and try to compose five reasonably considered, mutually exclusive interpretations of events, delete them, and move on, just as an exercise. Not that anybody asked me, or should. ;-)
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. I don’t know if Ms Watson and Mr Mooney’s goals would be so different, or if there were some major personal history, that would prevent her from appearing on a show he happens to be currently hosting.
It’s an interview. People of opposing views get interviewed by their each other all the time. (I don’t even know if Ms Watson is involved in the gnu/accommodationist thing.)
The only problem I can see is if Mr. Mooney uses this as a platform to attack Dawkins instead of conducting a proper interview and Ms Watson paid him lip service.
@ post 41
Which is a shame really because I thought your neighbour problem would have united the community.
Well, yes, I agree. ‘Vulnerable’ was not exactly the word that I was aiming at, although in many situations women are more “vulnerable” than men precisely because of the way men tend to objectify them; they are more prone to being addressed in that way, and to be targets of aggressive moves in a way that men very often are not.
@ Ophelia:
Notice that this particular phrase was said by the interviewer, not RW.
Just wait till Hitchens gets a word in about it.
I repeat:
There is no mystery to this situation. It is the equivalent of high-school drama.
1. Two feminists have a personal disagreement of opinion on a particular ‘hot’ topic.
2. One of them, instead of dealing with it as a difference of opinion to debate, assumes the other one “doesn’t get it” for nefarious reasons (secretly anti-woman and a parrot of misogynist thought). Says as much in a public talk as a snipe.
3. The snipee and her friends rightfully get upset. Minor kerfuffle ensues.
4. The sniper assumes all the people she pissed off are “not getting it” for nefarious reasons. Decides to escalate by posting more snipes at the snipee and another bystander who “doesn’t get it”.
5. PZ thinks all this kerfuffle is over the ‘hot’ topic, when it’s really not. But, unaware, he makes a big deal of the ‘hot’ topic. Enormous shitstorm ensues.
6. Random atheists, unaware of how the disagreement of opinion between two feminists has been escalated into a major shitstorm by the sniper feminist, think this is all about the ‘hot’ topic.
7. On the one side are people like Richard Dawkins, who “doesn’t get” why there’s such a huge shitstorm over the ‘hot’ topic, when it seems obvious to him that no harm was done and this shitstorm appears to be an enormous distraction from real issues of feminism.
8. On the other side are people like PZ, who “doesn’t get” why so many people don’t care about the ‘hot’ topic they way they do, when it appears obvious to them that harm was done and this shitstorm is worthy of attention.
9. Both sides “don’t get” why the other side “doesn’t get it”. Many of them assume that the other side “doesn’t get it” because they are nefarious evil ne’er do-wells, and they let that be known, adding more shit to the storm.
So, a minor difference of opinion, which should have been discussed rationally by the original two feminists, has been turned into an enormous shitstorm because of so many people’s willingness to react irrationally to disagreement, and assume incorrectly that “They don’t get it, cuz they’re assholes who should be cut down to size, instead of taking them seriously enough to have a rational discussion of the subject.”
That is all this is.
Had Rebecca Watson respected Stef McGraw enough to discuss the incident with her rationally (note I do not say ‘civilly’), almost nobody would have bothered to get involved, and Richard Dawkins would not be mischaracterized as a misogynist by random media outlets who only care to throw more shit on the storm.
Hi Wonderist,
there is obvious contention about the first three points of your analysis, which makes the rest of your commentary another waste of about 500 words. 1 is not a “personal disagreement” but involves one of the parties publicly criticising the other via a blog (and one of her friends issues most of the same vapid naïve thoughts along with an accusation of sexism). 2 does not involve an assumption, but a direct reading of and reaction to the blog. And the “rightful” amount of hurt in your 3rd point is questionable, as some posters above (like Simon) actually heard Watson’s criticism of McGraw, and have attested that it was actually fairly mild (those of us who are still interested are waiting to see video of this before paying too much heed to hearsay). In short, you can say anything if you’re prepared to misrepresent the situation (as many others have).
@Wonderist (#49): What would a “rational” discussion between McGraw and Watson look like?
#49 Quite so. having worked in education in North London for 10 years, this farrago just reminds me uncomfortably of a number of management meetings. The only thing I would say is that none of it alters by one tittle my opinion of anyone involved.
Hi Ophelia,
Have you seen the latest Mr. Deity? In my mind, it brings a lot of sanity and perspective. And it might, just might, cheer you up a little. Maybe. I can only hope. I’m not sure if linking to it is kocher, I hope it is OK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKAO_ieeqTo&feature=player_embedded
Just to remind us all, the huge shitstorm broke out when:
1. Stef McGraw criticised Watson in a civil way on a student blog.
2. Watson took the opportunity to attack McGraw from the podium at a CFI conference for student leaders, where Watson was a keyunote speaker McGraw was one of the delegates and had no real opportunity to defend herself. (Watson had previously behaved pretty badly towards Paula Kirby in Dublin, when she went off-topic on a panel to use her time to attack Kirby.)
3. PZ wrote a blog post supporting Watson’s action in abusing her power to humiliate McGraw at the CFI conference.
4. Dawkins made a comment on PZ’s blog in which he (rather sarcastically) suggested a bit of perspective.
A lot of us think that Elevator Guy must have seemed creepy (irrespective of what he really intended or didn’t intend), but we don’t think McGraw did anything so wrong that it justified how Watson treated her, let alone PZ praising Watson for it from his bully pulpit. We may also believe that Dawkins’ initial comment was a bit dismissive of a genuine issue of people not creeping each other out at conferences, but we agree with him that it was OTT for PZ to write a blog post in support of the humiliation of an up-and-coming leader in our movement at a conference put on to nurture such people. And we don’t believe that Dawkins did anything so wrong as to justify the demonisation he’s received or particularly the calls for him to “Shut up,” on the basis that he’s white and male and “doesn’t get it”.
I’m not at all surprised to see which way Chris “Shut Up” Mooney has jumped. Is anybody?
For me, the central issue here is still the treatment of McGraw (who is still owed an apology) … and now more generally the use of power to try to shut people up.
I think this is important, not because of the particular events, but because it represents an attempt to define the boundaries of the movement. Are we about atheism, or are we about rational belief? If prominent atheists show themselves to be irrational, do we give them a free pass or a reprimand? To what extent do we want to affiliate ourselves and tie our fortunes to other ideologies like feminism? Is it reasonable to humiliate and try to exclude people with mixed motives from our gatherings? Why do we gather at all? Is it to socialise, to lobby, to get laid? All these issues are simmering below the surface, and it’s good to get them out and give them air from time to time. Keep them suppressed and eventually we can expect to see huge schisms appearing.
My only concern in the issue is to lobby for creepy guys. Creepy guys — ‘socially awkward, lonely men’, if you prefer — have played a huge part in the atheist and sceptic movements, and declaring open season on them is not going to do the movement any favours. Come down too hard on us and we will simply take our Blackberries and go away.
So Your saying Watson hacked Mgraws account and revealed her personal thoughts from her diary in public? No? Oh it was a public blog? Then it must be because Mcgraw is 12 years old and in need of your protection? No? Is this the first time someone has been called out in a public forum because of something they said in public? At this point Watson better be calling Mcgraw some pretty seriously foul things when the video is released, because if she didn’t the response is a bit silly.
Dr. Blackford, it cannot be the case that anyone here, or anywhere else on the planet, is by now unfamiliar with the story.
Secondly, reasonable people can, and do, disagree about who said what to whom, in which order, and who is therefore at fault in this mess.
As for your “we” business, unless you have a ferret in your pocket, it would be good if you did not presume that all of us were in agreement with you about your version of the story.
@Jon Jeremy Yes, Watsons “hey, don’t do that” was nearly enough to crush my pearls. She was so hard on men in that video I was crying for a week.
I think this is a really interesting problem and not just a one-off spat. That’s because it reflects a division in the modern political center between libertarians and feminists. And this division is a complete disaster for advocates of sanity, because the New Right has become culturally powerful by exploiting the friction between these positions.
If skeptics can’t figure out how to draw the line between libertarianism and feminism in a principled way, the skeptical centre will continue to be vulnerable to this kind of infighting. So let’s talk about elevators for the next 20 years, if that’s what it takes.
Wonderist,
There is no “really”, here — no underlying reality. There are, however, many people upset at various inter-related and things.
Just as you produced a fair description of the events, ‘the hot topic’ also happened, and also upset a certain contingent of men. Hence, some men claim that they will “not be spoken to” in Rebecca’s “tone”. <a href=”http://mirandaceleste.net/2011/07/07/theres-nothing-skeptical-about-the-skepchicks-vicious-campaign/#comment-417″>That’s an opinion some people really do have</a>, it concerns The Hot Topic, and I think it is fair to say that it is widespread. I can remark that such persons are committed to positions that are foolish and untrustworthy, but I can’t remark that they don’t exist.
@Russell Blackford
Sorry, but I’m waiting for the video to come out before I believe anything like that. I know that is what the spin doctors want us to think right now, but I’m not buying it.
I watched Kirby’s talk at Coyne’s website and was kind of astounded with it. Her opening line was “I actually sort of feel I’m here under false pretenses because I’m a bit of a skeptic as to whether this is actually a topic that deserves a place on the program at a conference like this–at all. My own feeling is that as women I’d like to feel we’ve moved beyond this sort of discussion, but at the same time I’m conscious that it is a question that keeps coming up over and over again.” Didn’t that deserve a response? I think it did. How you can call that “acting badly” is beyond me, and I don’t think you should.
Russell, if McGraw was “humiliated” by having her publicly posted blog comment criticized in a public forum, then she’s not a future leader of anything I’d want to be associated with.
“Humiliated”, “attacked”, “insulted”, “smeared”.
I cannot wait to see this talk.
I have been quite ignorant of much of this. After reading Russell’s post, I now realise I was indeed missing many of the details. I am grateful for his summary, although not entirely glad I read it as the whole business now seems even worse. One thing I am still ignorant about is how the elevator situation, McGraw and Watson are linked. Did McGraw say something about the elevator situation? Was it something different? What did Watson attack McGraw for?
I hope you all can see how ignorant it is possible for someone who has been trying to follow this can be!
@Steve Zara I could give you my biased view of it, but I suggest you simply track back the posts and view the video in question. Then read the posts. I suggest being careful of what you attribute to whom though, while normally the people on these blogs have good reading comprehension this issue seems to have struck many of the normal readers stupid.
Oh and one of the main videos is not up yet (the one where Watson viciously disembowels McGraw in front of her family and all her friends /s )
During the main firestorm of last week it was rather obvious that mob mentality had taken over. The disgustingly condescending “they don’t get it” meme (ha!) was being flung at anyone who refused to get in line behind the mob. It didn’t matter if you said RW was justified in feeling creeped out in the lift, you were still a misogynistic pig if you disagreed with her treatment of Steph McGraw – in particular going out of her way to call McGraw a misogynist during her talk to youth leaders.
I don’t see this as a question of tone. I see this as a question of skepticism. If you are making a claim (for instance that the remarks of one person who criticizes something you said are equivalent to remarks calling for you to be raped) then you better have some damn good evidence to back that claim. If its simply a question of feeling or emotion then forget about labeling it as skepticism. What is it that Hitchens says “that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.
This is not an isolated case in the modern skeptical/atheist community. Some individuals seem to have the attitude that all is fair in love, war and blogging. Criticize them and its no holds barred. For many of us from a research and academic background who enjoy the aspect of skepticism that regards evidence as a critical point this is hugely disappointing. Calling someone a misogynist, a racist or privileged should actually mean something other than signifying someone who doesn’t agree 100% with your views.
@David
I have started to do what you suggest. I find it sad that these things happen. It’s not like this kind of thing is new – it’s absolutely typical of the kind of thing that has been happening in different Internet media for decades. And yet it seems history repeats.
I have lost friends over this particular situation. But perhaps they never were friends. Ah well.
http://www.unifreethought.com/2011/06/fursdays-wif-stef-32.html-patient zero
She embedded Ms Watson’s video on the matter there too. Ms Watson made her own summary of the event on her site and Ms McGraw made her own follow up explaining how she felt after Ms Watson’s comments on stage.
@Sigmund were you there? I would actually like to see the video myself but it is not up. If you could tell us what was said first hand that would be great.
Russel
Whatever it takes to disparage the most famous Gnu, even if it positioning yourself on the same side as a merely very famous one (PZ).
Unless your name is Ophelia Benson, apparently.
There is a difference between calling someone a misogynist and saying they’ve been influenced by misogynistic thinking or their privileged position.
Who said this and where?
Racist? I’m sorry but where exactly did that come from? Baggage from elsewhere? Check it at the door, please.
David, no I wasn’t, but yI have read Watsons own account about how she labeled McGraw a misogynist.
http://skepchick.org/2011/06/on-naming-names-at-the-cfi-student-leadership-conference/
It would look like any other rational discussion, of course. Of crucial importance in this particular dispute, it would have involved Watson asking, “Say, McGraw, what you say sounds to me very similar to what I’ve heard from typical ‘misogynist thought’. Could you clarify on X, Y, and Z?”
Instead, you get Watson claiming that McGraw is simply “parroting misogynist thought”, and is engaging in “anti-woman rhetoric”.
Her claim happens to be false. The truth is that McGraw is a self-declared feminist, was not parroting any misogynist, but was expressing her own opinion on the subject, which just happened to be different from Watson’s. Watson did not respect McGraw enough to clarify. Instead, she irrationally assumed nefariousness.
Minor kerfuffle. But then Watson again assumes that those defending McGraw are misogynists. She posts her Naming Names post, making more false claims about McGraw, and distracting away from the whole reason for the kerfuffle in the first place (namely, her sniping at McGraw).
PZ picks it up, think’s it’s actually about Elevator Guy, and goes off on that, leading shitloads of other people to think that it must be about Elevator Guy, too. But no. The whole thing started with one assumption and one act: McGraw must be a parrot of misogynist thought, therefore I’ll cut her down to size in my upcoming talk.
Two errors. First, the assumption. Second, the not-checking of the assumption.
Not coincidentally, this is exactly the same pattern of scapegoating and witch-hunting (don’t know a better word for it) that has resulted in Richard Dawkins being wrongly labelled as a misogynist.
It is the exact same pattern, over and over and over again. It is the snowball (or rather, shitball) that started tumbling down the mountain of shit leading to an avalanche of shit covering everything.
In fact, I won’t be surprised if it starts getting thrown at me too. Thankfully, I’m confident enough that Ophelia knows enough about me to know that I’m 100% against sexism and bigotry of any kind. So I’m comfortable enough here to state my opinion.
Rational response to disagreement on feminism (or any issue): What do you mean by that, because it sounds a lot like misogyny?
Irrational response to disagreement on feminism (or any issue): You’re a misogynist!
Rational follow up to persistent disagreement: You’re welcome to your opinion, but I think it’s wrong (even stupid), and here’s why:…
Irrational response to persistent disagreement: None of you Xs get it. You’re all misogynists! This is just more proof of how misogyny is such a huge problem among Xs. Let’s boycott all Xs!
Telling someone that something they said is misogynistic is not calling them a misogynist. Kinda like when you do something really stupid and your friend says “that was pretty fucking stupid” hes not calling you stupid.
@Sigmund
Skimming the Skepchicks post by Watson you linked to, I find that it says that McGraw was validating misogyny, not that she was a misogynist.
Aratina, saying someone is saying anti-woman things or validating misogyny is making a pretty clear accusation of behaving in ways consistent with misogyny.
An analogy would be someone accusing you of saying anti-black or racist things – how is that different from calling you a racist?
@Sigmund,
You mean like when Whoopi told everyone to shut up about Ted Danson doing blackface, that means Whoopi is a racist?
Marta, do reasonable people assume that they are definitely right, and that the other person is so wrong that they must therefore be anti-woman and also misogynist? And then do these reasonable people proclaim their opinions to be obviously true, smearing their opponents with their slurs?
Are you really willing to join that team?
Or, do actual reasonable people have enough self-awareness that they realize they could be wrong, and so ask questions to clarify the situation, rather than spew ad hominem attacks and ignore the other person’s POV?
My point in all this is that YES, of course it’s a difference of opinion. Wonderful! Let’s have a discussion about it!
Why the fuck do we need to turn it into a witch-hunt scapegoating shitstorm?
As opposed to the team that’s made plans to cop feels off Ms Watson at the next TAM?
“Why the fuck do we need to turn it into a witch-hunt scapegoating shitstorm?”
Good point. why are you?
@Aratina, no, more like when people said Mel Gibsons insulting remarks to the Jewish traffic cop who arrested him were anti-Semitic.
By the striped suspenders of the sweet baby Jesus, I have joined no goddamn team, and will not be drafted, either. About half the time, I’ve thought that the comments of Group A were staggeringly and blindingly stupid, and this thought has lingered in my head until I read the clueless, witless and moronic remarks of Group B. With rare exceptions, the way that the principals have distinguished themselves in this contretemps is by their willingness to set their own houses on fire.
@ Benjamin Nelson #59
Yes, Benjamin, there really is a “really” here, an underlying reality. I suspect you haven’t investigated the timeline of events as deeply as I and others have. I could be wrong on that, but your saying there’s no “really” doesn’t jibe with the real events that I’ve observed (and anyone can observe if they look).
There are exactly two instances of escalation of the difference of opinion between McGraw and Watson.
Escalation #1: Watson sniping McGraw instead of engaging in rational discourse.
Escalation #2: Watson posting Naming Names, which repeats her snipes at McGraw and shifts focus away from her original sniping, and onto the Elevator Guy topic. (And again avoids actual, rational discourse with the real person she disagrees with)
Prior to those two actions of Watson, there was no shitstorm. After those two actions, there was a shitstorm. It is fair to say that Escalation #2 is the major cause of the shitstorm because said shitstorm went full blast when PZ bought into Watson’s dishonest take on the issue, which was borrowed from Escalation #2.
I am willing to wager that if PZ had instead seen this kerfuffle brewing from the beginning, had read McGraw’s post before hearing Watson’s distorted take on it, he would have stood up for McGraw, just as he stood up for Crackergate guy.
@sigmund Mcgraws post was kinda misogynistic. Kinda like Whoopi Goldberg saying Roman Polanski didn’t rape rape that 13 year old.
Spin doctors! <shakes head>
That is what the whole kerfuffle was about in the first place! That was the absolute #1 complaint against Watson, from the very beginning.
Prior to the sniping from the podium, all there was was a difference of opinion on one topic. A difference of opinion does not need to turn into a shitstorm, if people just deal with it as a difference of opinion. Watson personalized it. Hence the kerfuffle. Then she escalated the sniping again. Hence the shitstorm.
Wonderist I sure hope you were there, because you seem so certain of what happened.
@Steve Zara
This may help with understanding the time-line and lead-up to the shitstorm: http://gnuatheism.wikispaces.com/Elevator+Guy+Kerfuffle
Wonderist, stop.
Wonderist, would you say that McGraw “sniped” at Watson, or is it only “sniping” when you disagree with it?
julian @ 71 –
actually RW did call RD racist, for saying “Muslima.” That’s in the skepchick post.Update: no she didn’t, that was Mindy in a different skepchick post.
@David:
All of my sources are from people who were there. I do not make any claims of my own. I only report what those people who were there reported. See the previous link for my sources.
@Screechy Monkey:
I have examined McGraw’s post several times. I do not see sniping. If you could quote something, that would be helpful. I previously answered a similar question as yours with more details here: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/focus/#comment-97411
@wonderist yeah….after reading that link I am thoroughly convinced.
Disregard the rest if your actually related to Stef or a really good friend or something
Please don”t take this the wrong way. I say this as someone who does have issues of my own. You should go see a doctor.
I thought you were going to invite him for coffee.
:/
I have to leave. I’m tempted to close comments…but won’t. But please don’t make a big mess here overnight. Wonderist I’d like you to just leave it now.
Ah.
Sorry about that then, Sigmund.
Wonderist, I am then really mystified by what you mean by “sniping.” McGraw criticized Watson’s comments, said they were hypocritical, and among other things accused her of being someone who doesn’t “truly abide[] by feminist principals.”
All of which is well within the bounds of reasonable discourse in my opinion, but I can’t understand any definition of “sniping” that excludes McGraw’s comments but includes Watson’s response.
Sorry Ophelia and Wonderist — my #97 crossed with Ophelia’s #95.
But Wonderist will delay replying until tomorrow. Please.
‘S’ok SM. Evening all.
@Wonderist, you suspect wrongly. Nothing about your recap was surprising. The only surprising thing about your remarks is that you pretend to be more knowledgable of the things that “really” upset people than the people themselves. That is… a problem.
Also, when you every other word, it makes me feel like I’m reading an Archie comic.
Minor nitpick, Ophelia. That was Mindy in her letter to Dawkins. Somewhere in the comments she later acknowledged that she was ignorant that Muslima is the proper term to refer to female adherents of Islam, but I can’t be bothered to search for that comment. I’ve read way too much to keep up with who said what already.
The one thing I’m still looking forward to is the video of RW’s talk from CFIcon. That’s the thing where I still withhold my judgment. Oh, yeah, and a clarification from Richard would be interesting.
That would be very much appreciated. I’m tentatively going to say the accusation of smearing, humiliating and the like are probably over the top. They’re also going to continue regardless of what the video shows.
@Sigmund
I fail to see how that supports your argument. In both cases, we have Whoopi telling everyone to stop treating a racist act like a racist act or to lighten up about Mel Gibson’s antisemitic remarks. She didn’t do either of those things but she validated their racist and antisemitic behaviors because, she says, one was a joke (haha) in a private club and the other was a drunken tirade (who doesn’t shout about Jews causing wars while drunk, huh?).
Jebus, not here, too.
I’ve noticed a consistent bias, well represented by Russell Blackford here (not to pick on him, but it’s just fairly typical).
“1. Stef McGraw criticised Watson in a civil way on a student blog.”
Yes. I disagree with McGraw’s position: Watson was also civil and casual in her criticism of the elevator incident. But I saw nothing wrong in her saying her piece.
“2. Watson took the opportunity to attack McGraw from the podium at a CFI conference for student leaders, where Watson was a keyunote speaker McGraw was one of the delegates and had no real opportunity to defend herself. (Watson had previously behaved pretty badly towards Paula Kirby in Dublin, when she went off-topic on a panel to use her time to attack Kirby.)”
Oops. Here’s the problem. In #1, McGraw criticized Watson in a civil way. In #2, the language changes dramatically: now Watson is “attacking”. She’s denying McGraw an opportunity to defend herself. Russell has not heard this talk. I haven’t either. I doubt that it was a mean-spirited, one-sided attack as it has been so frequently characterized.
I suspect this because I did hear both Paula Kirby’s and Rebecca Watson’s talks in Dublin. Watson did not behave “pretty badly”. She offered a polite, respectful criticism of Kirby’s earlier assertion that sexism wasn’t really a problem for her, pointing out that it is still a problem for many women. Again, there was no attack, no anger. I talked to Kirby at some length afterwards, she didn’t seem mauled at all, and conceded that she’d been given food for thought.
This has been a consistent pattern. The anti-Watson camp relies on gross misrepresentation: I’ve heard so many over-the-top descriptions of her behavior that do not correspond in any way to what actually happened. Even her original comments on the now notorious youtube video were remarkably innocuous — no condemnations of anyone, no declarations that she was persecuted, no long drawn out discussions of what it all means (something I wish these threads were capable of): all she said was a brief description of an awkward moment, with a light and casual suggest that guys not do that anymore. And that’s it.
That’s actually why this issue hasn’t gone away. It’s fundamentally so trivial, so boring, so inconsequential, and Watson’s comment on it was so normal and proportionate, that people are appalled that there are so many recriminations over entirely reasonable behavior by Watson. And we’re kind of peeved that so many people can’t understand why such vociferous condemnation of the most mildly assertive statements from a woman constitute a dismissal of her right to speak.
I also think the criticism of Dawkins has gone over the top, too. I disagree with his tack on the issue, but it’s ridiculous to accuse him of being a “dumb rich guy” or a misogynist or whatever the furious insult du jour is. I just think he really missed the mark with his argument.
Russell and PZ should fight to the death. PZ being RW’s champion and Russell being Stef M.’s. That’s the way to sort out a feminist squabble, old-skool battle to death between champions. Let’s get medieval!
Every story has two sides.
If it weren’t for Richard Dawkins’ involvement, no-one other than the skeptical equivalent of trekkies would be following all this (In that case the “conversation”, for all its faults would still have value to the extent that at least some of the parties are making sincere efforts to understand the positions of those they disagree with – and even if that extent is small I suspect that the harm done by harsh feelings may be balanced by whatever longer term reflection on the issues gets stimulated).
But it is Dawkins oar which has paddled this boat into the mainstream and with which he could have paddled it back out again whenever he chose to do so. So, on the assumption that he is not “dumb” (about which I am inclined to agree with you), it would seem that he wanted this to play out as it has. Do you have any idea why?
This isn’t going well. It’s going badly.
Look at the silver limning; light has been shone on a festering sore, and awareness raised.
(Yes, it has led to polarisation on the issue, but hey! Here it is, in the open)
—
PS “Deep Rifts!”
When the internet gets mad the only loser is perspective. Ophelia is right in the post, this has just gone too far. That isn’t trivialising any incident or context to the incident, it’s just got to the point where the more this is pushed out, the more everyone looks like an idiot.
There is no other context to the elevator incident other than it was creepy and wrong. Rebecca was perfectly right to highlight it, mention it, raise awareness that sometimes, when the tom cat takes over, guys are creepy, so just keep that in mind guys.
Dawkins was right, there are bigger causes to champion, there’s always someone worse off, but he came across as completely condescending and trivialising what was, for Rebacca a concern and a legitimate one.
And then the internet got mad.
More or less from the start this has been less about whether or not you think it’s right that men can at best be oblivious to how they come across at worst aggressive, it’s been about blogger alliances again. People giving away their self respect in order to champion the line their favourite blogger happens to follow. It always is.
It’s done, I hope it is now forgotten. Oh wait, moody’s interviewing her now. I’m sure he’s real concerned and it’s nothing to do with pouring further bile on Dawkins. Maybe Moody could also interview Johann Hari about being suspended and the “sock puppet” investigation at the Independent.
Sometimes when someone says something that pisses you off you can just walk away it doesn’t all have to be played out in public like some drunken fight at a trailer park but with better grammar and bigger words. Even when you’re in the right, you don’t have to publically respond each and everytime, sometimes you can just let something go.
C Anders, I take your point: This shouldn’t be such a big deal and making comments about the issue is over-the-top.
Thanks for not contributing to it. ;)
@ John Morales, yeah, irony never was my strong point.
I think PZ has pretty much got it on the nose. (To the extent that matters.)
…yes, I realize that idle “me too” posts are boring and stupid and I should be ashamed. But I’m awake at 5AM for some reason and it’s something to do.
[meta]
C Anders, damn good response!
(Sorry Ophelia, I know you wanted to keep things on topic.
But I feel kudos is due, here)
Amazing how full of themselves some people and their ferrets are.
Pretty much with PZ in #105 and 106.
The pro- steffi mcgraw camp seems to be overstating their case.
Something ugly has been exposed underlying the atheist movement. The options are–we can talk about it reasonably as adults, or the ugliness continues. Personally, I don’t think the atheist movement is mature enough to talk about it reasonably.
For what my opinion is worth I file this incident under the same category as those false accusations levelled in the “don’t be a dick” saga. We confuse the immediate internet based ire, flamming, response, criticism and wars with actual human behaviour. It isn’t. There’s nothing ugly being exposed among the athiest movement other than people are too quick to flash over with any perceived or actual slight when on the internet. It happens in every single internet community, it happens on Star Trek forums, music forums, sports forums, car forums, cat lover forums, favourite poop scoop forums. People align themselves with a “dogma” and let minor disputes take over because there are no consequences on the internet and you can be whoever you want to be.
I can categorically prove this isn’t even remotely a reflection of real life by the fact that in work, in the pub and on the street there is no one stood arguing over this stuff face to face. If the internet were a representation of the real world then society would have collapsed into genre wars several years ago.
The “don’t be a dick” crowd super imposed the angry internet person with real life and it’s the same in this case. It’s a micro argument, take it away from internet forums and blogs and have the people in the same room discussing this and it would be over and dusted before they all sit down to watch Real Housewives.
Same here, battle lines are drawn, anger is overflowing and few heavily invested in this want to hear anyone pipe up and say “you know, they both have a point and maybe they were both lacked an element of tact in how they communicated that point”.
Look at what elevator guy has done; he’s made me an accomodationist.
Now that’s not on!
Doesn’t matter really. Using such a speech in this way is just not on, even if it was not so much an attack as a friendly verbal clip around the ear. Using such a speech to express your love for puppies and rainbows is just not on unless the speech is supposed to be about light refraction and mammalian young.
Steve, is that a rule of speeches? If Dawkins (to pluck a name out of my derriere) mentions puppies, or tells a mildly amusing anecdote about someone who he ran into five minutes ago while giving a speech about religion, is breaking a rule of speeches? Or is it more circumscribed?
One of the problems could be the encouragement of “attack dog” mentality, or othering, prevalent at places like Pharyngula. That’s very useful, and necessary, in combating religious perceptions of authority and stone tablet certainty, but it may not be the optimal discourse to use internally. Throwing words like “sexism”, “misogyny”, and “privilege” around without argument doesn’t really foster a culture of debate, nor promote acceptance of minor dissent.
Leave cultism to the religious experts.
Brian-
Depends what you are up to. The thing is, being given a speech opportunity is a privilege[sic]. It’s rather rude to use that for anything like a personal attack. Your voice is amplified in a way that voices of those you attack aren’t. These things, like panel discussions, run on a system of mutual respect and good manners. If people are going to neglect those then it’s all going to go downhill quickly.
As for Dawkins, well, he was one of the worst offenders when he was supposed to give some biological talk at TED many years ago and instead he launched ‘militant atheism’. And we all know how that worked out :) I guess if you are going to break a rule, you should break it hard!
Was it really “polite and respectful” (PZ) of Watson to say Kirby was making an argument from “ignorance” and “privilege”? Not in my world! I think Team Watson shows its own bias by leaving that part out.
Marta @82:
Yes. Excellent post. Now all we need is Graham Chapman in a british general’s uniform, in close-up, saying “stop it, stop it, this is too silly…..”
And then we can get on with the next skit. This has all been a skit, hasn’t it?
@ Jean K
While it may not be your words, you’re misrepresenting the context of the quote quite nicely. Rather than the quotation on “ignorance” it should have been the whole phrase “an argument from ignorance”. That is a standard term used in defining a certain logical fallacy as is “argument from privilege”. It is not the same as calling someone ignorant and priveleged and I assume you’re more than aware of that and that this is just the classical use of “an argument from shit stirring”.
So accusations of making fallacious arguments aren’t respectful when we aim them at the believers?
If this conversation has shown me anything it’s that a lot of skeptics are the first to cry foul when subjected to the same criticism they regularly dish out.
I really don’t like this business of telling people to walk on eggshells when having public conversations with fellow skeptics.
When I pay money to go to a conference and hear leaders in the movement speak, I’m not there to sit through a bunch of pleasantries and talking points. I want them to tell it like it is. If that involves some internal debate and even heated discussions about a legitimate disagreement, I welcome it.
Now that I’m not on an iphone, I can elaborate. Actually, I’m just going to copy what I wrote at the Intersection last night, in response to the same objection (it was made by JJ Ramsey).
Who is saying that?
(Apologies to Ophelia; I’ll refrain from injecting my opinion, and only report facts, if that’s okay.)
@PZ:
Is PZ aware of Stef McGraw’s own reaction to the events? Stef was there, Stef is a person. It could be argued that her experiences count just as much as anyone’s, including Rebecca:
http://www.unifreethought.com/2011/06/fursdays-wif-stef-33.html
Stef:
(Bold added for highlighting. Italics in original.)
Numerous others objected strongly to Watson’s actions as well:
http://malimar.livejournal.com/412658.html
Thanks for that Jean, I don’t agree with the conclusion though. In essence Watson (and others) are saying they have seen sexism at meetings and Kirby saying she hasn’t. It’s your assumption that Watson is assuming Kirby hasn’t been to meetings or any of the other caveats. However, the point is that Kirby did indicate that as she hadn’t seen it and on that basis she was of the opinion that it didn’t happen. That is still an argument from ignorance and not Watson calling her ignorant.
If Kirby had answered the question simply that in all her years involved in attending those meetings that she had never been excluded and finished there and then Watson had said what she had, I’d have agreed totally with you. But Kirby did extend the opinion that based on never witnessing something, it didn’t occur. That’s logical fallacy 101.
PZ, I’m pretty disappointed. By many things. Let me say the first and most dominant for me.
This camp talk. “Anti-Watson”? “Team Watson”?
Is this junior high tag ball?
I’m sorry I’m in noone’s team I’m a skeptic and the kindergarten that has been going on here is beneath a lot of people who openly peddle in it.
We can micro-mince words all we want. Respectful -> attack? Bias? Give me a break.
When is telling another feminist that she is ignorant, peddling in ancient woman-hating rhetoric, or maintaining misoyny NOT an attack. It is.
Look Rebecca was right to talk about the elevator incident. I’m on kindergarten-team Watson on that one. She has the right to feel that way and talk about it.
Other people like Stef McGraw, that youtube girl, Richard Dawkins have the right to have a different perspective. Shockingly they do and skepticism would mean to actually engage with them, rather than stick them in a camp (“anti”) and reduce the argument to how this was really a story about fears of rape, potential rape and telling men not to rape. (No bias in that exaggeration?) And you know what. I agree with Richard, that this is not something huge. My feelings get disregarded all the time. I’m in uncomfortable positions all the time. Noone baby-sits my feelings or tells anyone to act differently. So if we are forcing that camp talk on each other, suddenly I’m in kindergarten team “Anti”-Watson. Whee.
But you know what Richard approached this with sarcasm, and failed to acknowledge Rebecca’s feelings. So yeah there is criticism to be had for him. The first part, is a point that we, especially YOU tend to excuse! The second part is his blinders. And yes he can be called out on it. But is it a huge deal? No. It isn’t. We don’t constantly acknowledge each others feelings. We really don’t and frankly I don’t expect YOU or anyone who doesn’t like what I say here to acknowledge mine.
With with the rape talk, you know what. It’s an exaggeration. Creepiness and discomfort are not fear of rape and facing a potential predator. Point? Hyperbole and exaggerations all around!
And no Rebecca is no angel in this. She has picked fights with numerous people, for, as best as I can tell, no other reason than to pick a fight. Because surely all the topics she raised she can easily raise without making certain individuals the face of what is wrong, putting them on the spot, a negative light at that. Whoever came up with the idea that naming names is always good, is deluded. We don’t do this most of the time, and we don’t do this for good reasons. It’s an invitation for people to NOT talk about the issues, but instead defend their character or correct the image about them that has been put out there.
Patterns? Lots of patterns all around. I don’t understand your pattern of ignoring what “one side” says or minimizing it, while defending what another side says, ignoring aspects that are relevant.
What pattern is this? Oh, right, it’s called group bias. But let’s not call this spekticism, free thought, maturity, or worthy of the atheist community.
And let me not even touch the Kirby thing. It’s yet another opportunity to micro-dissect who said what precisely how. A bad habit that was cultivated the last few days. Yes analysis is great, but it should matter a little more. In many ways it is much more interesting to observe who gets called out and who isn’t…
But all that said, yes we do need to make conferences a great experience for everybody. That’s for all genders. And to be inviting, let’s get dealing with that into the news… oh wait… Quite a number of people have said this early on. Let me mention Hemant Metha (Friendly Atheist) very early on. But! Of course he is ignored because he didn’t pick the right camp colors.
Call me silly, but I think if there was any better advertisement for women to not join the cause, it was this shit-storm. And no, the fault does not lie solely at the feet of Dawkins, I would argue, not even primarily. He is not the one running to a bunch of podcasts and radio shows keeping the story alive and loud now is he? He’s not the one who has injected rape talk into the conversation. He is not the one who has painted a picture just how sexist the community is, something that, if this wasn’t shit-storm land, we could have a nuanced debate of. Perhaps one that is meant to correct not to be a public spectacle.
But that cannot be said. Blame has to be accorded whole-sale by camp association!
(And I already can tell you all the things I will get accused of for saying what I say here)
Can we stop the childish kindergarden camp thing now? Thanks!
Also, I was there too for Rebecca’s talk in Amherst and I didn’t see or hear anything untoward.
I still don’t see why she couldn’t bring it up during the Q&A. Ms Watson had clearly indicated during her talk this was something she wanted to talk about and discuss. How exactly was it outside the scope of what should be asked?
I also don’t get this. If the complaint is addressing possibly false or insulting remarks how would the change of venues help? Ms. McGraw just acknowledged Ms Watson has a much larger readership and whatever conversation they had it’d be her views that would reach the most people. Since the quote is one Ms McGraw stands by, I don’t see why it should particularly matter since Ms Watson hasn’t, in my opinion, misrepresented anything Ms McGraw has said.
But isn’t that the point of Q&A? To hold the person with the podium accountable for what they said and ask them to elaborate on things they may have touched on poorly or not been very explicit ?
Moq said:
Is it ever necessary? This type of no holds barred group attack strategy is discouraged here at Butterflies and Wheels and at WEIT yet there is little evidence that the style of these two forums results in a weaker approach to anti-evolutionists, accomodationists or religious supporters.
What the attack-dog strategy does promote is a rather indiscriminate targeting of anyone who challenges a consensus viewpoint. PZ can, of course, do what he likes with his own forum but having the equivalent of a 4CHAN for atheism is not without its downside.
From PZ
Quite, and the two in combination have turned into an internal tug of war, or a brick wall to crash into. Plus the whole business of doing an interview about comments on a blog…It just seems like overkill. (Not because they are necessarily and inherently trivial, but because they are unlikely to be considered in the way an article or a talk at a conference is. It seems most unlikely that Richard intended to set off all this rending of garments, so the endless parsing looks like overkill at this point.)
Drive “women” away from the movement? How about driving away anybody who isn’t interested in the irrational cat-fighting of intellectually overrated, narcissistic “leaders?” It’s the evolution and propagation of good ideas that matter, not the erection and maintenance of a “movement.” If the ego-tripping, energy-draining side shows that tend to emerge in movements are allowed to overshadow the positives, then why should anybody want to join? If people who constantly preach about the pitfalls of cognitive bias, anecdotal evidence, insufficient data and so forth can’t restrain themselves from the kind of irresponsible conclusion-jumping see all over this kerfuffle – beginning with Watson herself in her initial “just sayin'” video blurt – than what business do we have preaching, and why should anyone listen?
Which is why I find all those complaints accusing Ms Watson of destroying or trying to create another wedge in the movement ridiculous.
Here’s what I don’t get: Watson is supposed to be neither polite nor respectful because she accuses Kirby of committing argument from ignorance and argument from privilege fallacies, and also because she attacks McGraw in her speech. Fair enough.
But McGraw calls Watson hypocritical on her blog, accuses her of “demonizing men for being sexual beings” (WTF?), and implies that she’s neither a feminist nor really wants gender equality (by beginning her sentences with “Someone who truly abides by feminist principles would,…” and “If you really want social equality for women…”, and then finishes them with describing something Watson is presumably guilty of doing) – and yet her response is deemed “civil.” (Don’t forget that McGraw wrote all this right after watching Watson’s initial video and *before* Watson’s speech in which she mentions McGraw.)
Some consistency would be great.
Julian – No, Watson just followed her customary modus operandi of elevating her personal distaste and intuitions into an argument from personal authority by murky anecdote, pretending to engage a serious, complicated issue while really only playing peek-a-boo “just sayin” games, aggrandizing her personal life and quirks into gospel. The world is me! Echoes of Oprah Winfrey. That set the tawdry tone, and everyone else happily joined in. I stand by my general analysis above that egos need to take a backseat to self-disciplined discussion of ideas. Watson’s general approach is destructive to that ideal. When she writes a serious book with careful arguments and references, then I’ll be impressed with her leadership credentials. For now, she just looks like any other leader of a social clique.PZ leans that way too. Maybe a bit less self and more skepticism is in order.
This isn’t going well!
:- b
Heh.
Just gotta get in that extra stab at her.
I should focus on erring journalists instead. No shortage of material there…groan.
“lost control” @ 102 – thanks for the correction. That’s not really a minor nitpick. I’ll tweak the
postcomment.And julian, you were right.
Aww. I was more interested in the “hot topic” as Russell puts it. Looks like the fluff around it is all that’s left.
You should have fast forwarded to the interview (by clicking on the bar and moving the curser to the right; I have even less reason to listen as I hate listening to people I can’t see and dislike most radio “personalities,” but I listened to this just as I listened to you being interviewed a few days ago). Whatever my feelings about those two, he obviously doesn’t think Dawkins is dumb (any more than I think Abbie Smith is a moron), but dumb about this issue, which he has been. The stuff about his being rich…see below. Watson does not attack Dawkins in the interview. In fact, she says I think twice that she was baffled by his comments, as were many others who simply couldn’t believe they’d really been from him (I was shocked, but perhpas not as much as most).
It isn’t trivial, because they were comments by Richard Dawkins. When you mentioned on an earlier thread that Dawkins had (finally, after your pressing the matter) told people at his site to stop calling women “bitches,” and I pointed out that he had done it himself, I should’ve mentioned that I was made aware that he had because a creep at Pharyngula who’d called me “bitch” returned a couple of weeks later to say like, “You know who else calls women bitches on the internet? Richard Dawkins.” He obviously expected me to rethink my position about sexist language on that basis and felt validated by it. Dawkins is someone people generally respect and think is intelligent. When he acts like this it gives sexists the message that they’re right and their behavior justified, and it creates an atmosphere online and at events that’s much more hostile to women and feminism. He’s been a leader. It’s not trivial.
Further, he’s had quite a while now to respond publicly or privately. This is a pattern with him. He leaves a few comments, just enough to give sexists the message that he stands with them, and then disappears. Then everyone is just supposed to forget about it because he didn’t respect them enough to respond to their replies. It’s bad behavior, especially in a case in which his comments were not general but specifically critical of a named individual. And then people responding to him (even when he asked them to!) are criticized for that and people come to his defense while he stands aloof. (And I will note that I was just defending Dawkins at some length here a couple of weeks ago from the misrepresentation of his work by Karla McLaren, and this despite the fact that I was unhappy with several of his comments.)
It’s not a minor nitpick. We’ve long criticized it when others have done this. Watson didn’t say that in her letter.
The reason people (including me in my post about it) are pointing this out is that he hits every privilege square. He was born rich and with access to a great education (I believe he’s referred to his family as middle or upper middle class British – by global standards that is an elite of an elite). He’s never in his adult life had to face prejudice, disrespect, or discrimination or had any aspect of his life or career made more difficult on the basis of any characteristic other than being an atheist, which, let’s face it, he also encounters from a position of immense privilege and power. I can’t know what it’s like to be black, but as a woman I do know what it’s like to face prejudice and discrimination. He doesn’t really have an experience like that to appeal to, as far as I know. This is not an indictment. It’s a call for him to appreciate that and why he’s unlikely to be in the moral vanguard here – to recognize that his life of privilege might have led him to be clueless and “dumb” on certain subjects and to address it.
@Ophelia #145
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet
Steve…groan.
Salty – good point about the influence factor. I didn’t know that about the “bitch” comment – well I guess I don’t need to say that, given the quantity of comments there are at Pharyngula.
You’re right. And yet…there is something grotesque about making too much of comments on a blog. It’s the same thing that helped to make chapter 8 of Unscientific America grotesque. In fact this is part of what Abbie has been saying, with characteristic vigor and wit. (I often disagree with Abbie, but by god she has vigor and wit.) Chapter 8 was dumb because of all the “she said he said in comments on a blog” crap that 99.9% of readers don’t give a flying fuck about. If it was dumb there it’s dumb elsewhere – we don’t want to follow that particular example, I think.
True, about time to respond, but at the same time we don’t know what he’s busy with, so we can’t really know how easy it is for him to respond.
Quite so about the nitpick. Apologies.
Privilege…yes ok. But there are ways and ways to say it. I think Rebecca said it very crudely. “Thanks, wealthy old heterosexual white man!” No.
I don’t know – maybe it was a matter of showing we don’t have to be deferential even to putative idols or gods or whatever the latest term of abuse is. But it’s ugly. It’s not a good way to issue a call.
Why was it OK for SC to tell me to “go to hell” after I shared a sensitive situation in my past and got emotional over it?
The interwebs are a great equalizer. They promote and offer access to personalities and leaders to whom we would would not have access in the real world. The response to an apparent or real misstep is instantaneous–one’s fans from only an hour ago can turn on a blog post. As we see. Prof. Dawkins is a much above average participant in the blog community. He knows this stuff. Regardless of the actual content of his posts at Pharyngula, why did he find the banana peel that was an ocean away from him and step on it? This is my question. He knows he is a leader. He knows that what he writes carries a huge amount of freight. Why this fairly trivial event, in such an arguably clueless way?
I have no idea, Hitch, because I have no idea what you’re talking about, because I don’t memorize every comment here, nor do I have time or inclination to micro-manage all of them, nor do I like people ordering me to do this or that about them (beyond pointing out truly OTT stuff in case I haven’t seen it).
Marta – my guess has always been a fit of temper or exasperation, followed by more exasperation at the response. That’s just a guess…but it’s based on my slowly dawning awareness that once in a blue moon, someone will have a fit of temper on the internet and make a grumpy comment. I know that’s hard to believe, but I’ve seen it happen at least 3 times in the past decade.
(I think it’s just barely possible that I’ve done that myself. Sometime. Ever.)
Huh? I’m not sure I understand what you’re talking about. The science blogosphere is an important area in a discussion of public science communication. My problem with that chapter had nothing to do with its focusing on blogs or the internet (and I don’t remember much “he said, she said”) but that when it presented “Crackergate” it did so in a dishonest way and made claims he couldn’t defend. It was also infuriating because he simply ignored everything people had explained to him on blogs (their own, others’, and his) for several months while he was writing the book. I don’t have any problem with these discussions of issues of importance to me crossing platforms (blogs, talks, interviews, books, leaflets, stone tablets, papyrus scrolls,…), and I think these lines people are drawing are strange and arbitrary. I’m a little surprised to hear it coming from you, as you’ve posted here about FB discussions; I’ve never criticized that, though it’s frustrating for those not on FB. :)
Matter of opinion.
If readers don’t care about what your book is about then they won’t read it. If people don’t care about the subject of a radio interview, they won’t listen. I think there were so many people trying to listen to that interview that their site went down, so I’d say there are plenty of people who do give a flying fuck, as also shown in the thousands upon thousands of comments on this.
Sigh.
I think the person he had publicly gone after out of the blue should get a bit of leeway in her response, at the very least to the same amount of “crudeness” as in the criticism. I dislike this idea that he can write about her in very harsh terms (and even his request for explanations was condescending and rude) but she has to be perfect sweetness and light in replying. No. :)
The segment leading up to it:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/focus/#comment-97208
I am not ordering you around. I am raising the issue. I happen to think it is NOT OK to treat victims of abuse like this. I incidentally took a leave after it to deal with my triggers. Would be nice if people would not aggressively go after victims around here. But if this is A-OK with you I’ll go elsewhere. I don’t need to stick around for more stuff like this.
What are you, in nursery school? “Opheeeeeeeeliaaaaa! SC told me to go to hell several days ago!” I was responding to your baseless claim that men’s real victimization is discounted by feminists or people in these discussions. First, it’s not discounting men’s victimization to talk about women’s (“What about the menz?!!!”); second, it’s completely false from what I’ve seen. Even after guys have shown up at Pharyngula making this suggestion in a really combative way, I’ve given them suggestions for sites and organizations where men can get help – the vast majority of them organizations originally set up by and for women but that want to help men as well. There are women at Pharyngula who’ve worked with male and female victims for years. This is also evident from the response to many of the comments from men talking about their experiences and receiving support and empathy from women. I’ve also discussed in depth how machista cultures lead to the victimization of both women and men and that that’s another reason we should work together to resist them. I wasn’t telling you to go to hell for sharing your experience, as you well know, but for your bogus claim which I’m tired of hearing.
***
Matter of opinion.
Upon more thought, I guess I’ll acknowledge vigor and wit. I haven’t found her witty in this episode, but did in the past.
Oh, that. For heaven’s sake, Hitch, this isn’t a hospital – it’s a blog on a website. Nobody can know anybody else’s mental state or “victim” status or anything of that sort. You tried to make the discussion about you, for reasons that are opaque to me. Nobody here knows what will be “triggers” for you, nobody knows that you’re a victim, nobody knows anything about you. That’s the internet. And yes, frankly, all that “but what about the poor menz will nobody think of the menz” nonsense was very irritating. If that makes your trigger hurt I’m sorry but I’m not an expert on your psychic health.
Bwa! I didn’t mean to echo you, Salty, it just happened. (I hadn’t seen yours when I posted mine.)
But seriously. Maybe I should write up a new rule. If you have mental health “issues” or “triggers” or “victim status” or any other such special condition that could make certain comments extra unpleasant for you…………..then please don’t comment here, because I can’t be responsible for that.
Hee. I had forgotten, too, that that was the very same comment that ended with a paragraph about: “For example it is still totally acceptable to be dismissive about “shy and lonely guys”.” If that doesn’t trivialize what came before it, I don’t know what would.
Yes, it was polite and respectful. I was there. Rebecca Watson likes Paula Kirby, as many of us do — not only is she an excellent writer, but she’s an interesting person to talk to. But she’s been fortunate enough to have a life relatively free of sexist criticism, and her talk was a little too blithe and dismissive of the experiences of other women, and Watson called her out on it. Not in an angry or condemning way, either, but by pointing out that her experiences weren’t entirely generalizable.
And here’s the important result: at a meeting of atheists where there was free dissent and discussion, this did not produce any ruffled feathers at all. There was some good dialog after the talks. Everyone I talked to thought the criticisms were productive.
I detest the polarization going on here, too. I’ve got no problem with Stef McGraw expressing herself, I like and appreciate the contributions of both Richard Dawkins and Rebecca Watson, but there really is a problem with sexism in the atheist community (and in the culture at large!) and it must be openly discussed. Not swept away and dismissed, not ignored, not diminished as unimportant. And the strongest evidence of that sexist attitude has been the way the calm, nuanced, proportionate words Watson used have been the focus of disproportionate hatred.
Lol. I can now proceed with my day in a good humor.
Hospital? Psychic health? Irritated about how I feel? Don’t need this victim shaming crap. Right, I’m gone.
By the way, since PZ’s just linked to her post, here’s the quick reply I wrote last night:
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/2011/07/short-note-to-greta-christina-on-great.html
I still find it interesting that there was no great hue and cry when people (including me) were saying the same thing recently about Chris Stedman or the NCSE (just substitute “atheists” for “women” and “the religious” for “men”).
@Tea,
For reference, here is the relevant quote, in context:
[edit]
Goodbye.
Oh I do so wish we could skip The Wonderist Encyclopedia of Stef McGraw.
Yes. That part of it is downright creepy, depressing, scary.
Russell’s comment (# 54) is now being pointed to as a Sign of weirdness among the gnu atheists or something. [eye roll]
Seriously, Wonderist, you better be related to McGraw, or else someone should point out to you as well that this place is not a psychiatric hospital.
Just a few points:
1. Of course McGraw is talking about her opinion – whose else would it be? Is Watson talking in someone else’s opinion? What stupid point to make is that??
2. Yes, McGraw called Watson’s comment, not Watson herself, hypocritical, and Watson called Kirby’s argument, not Kirby herself, ignorant and privileged (and really, not even that, but let’s not get into that, shall we?). Back to square one.
3. I didn’t bother to read the rest of your comment. You need to get a life.
Now atheists will be branded sexist and intolerant of people with mental illnesses. We really need to hire some PR people.
So do I. And also the excessive bolding. It’s way beyond tedious.
We seem unable to reach common ground on most of this. Although many feel it’s important to keep talking about it, it’s not getting resolved. At. All.
Can we “move on” to something more interesting, like putting the boot into Murdoch and News Corp? We do have reason to celebrate a bit at the moment.
Anyway, I’m moving on.
Yes and no. To me it kinda was because I assumed Ophelia was simply making an honest mistake which wouldn’t surprise me given the amount of comments and blogs involved. These things happen. I feel it’s better to simply point them out to set the record straight and not making a fuss about it.
Other than that, I was completely unimpressed about that Citizen Radio interview. The attempts at humour by the hosts was, well, utterly unappealing to me. Taste is subjective. Regarding substance, I didn’t spot anything new at all.
I even helped myself to the SGU podcast dealing with All That. A bit more elaboration on RW’s part but nothing really new either, imho. Listening with half an ear, I think I spotted some phrases that had gotten harsh responses elsewhere but not in that setting. I could be wrong though. Context matters, eh? :)
Human interactions fascinate me. But I guess I should stick to lurking instead of participating. I feel kinda misplaced, anyway. ;-)
PZ said:
Not discussed, however, on Pharyngula.
To be more serious for a second, what solutions are being suggested?
The new guidelines issued by DJ Grothe for TAM9 in response to the elevator problem are highly problematic. Elevator Guy could have behaved exactly the same way and would not have contravened the new rules. What exactly was the point of that? It sounds like simple window dressing that avoids addressing the real issues of womens safety at skeptic conferences.
How about a joint statement by Dawkins and Watson both admitting mistakes were made and pledging to work together in future?
Just wondering why people feel such a strong need to let us know they’re not interested in our conversations. Are their browsers stuck? Are they paying monthly subscriptions to B&W or Gnuz Blogz? Stay away, we won’t notice!
Sigmund:
That’s not really fair. Really. There are more than 4,000 comments on the issue among several threads at Pharyngula. Blog hosts are allowed to be “done” with a topic for the time being, especially when everything being said has been said multiple times, and people are worn down with obtuse and obnoxious responses.
I’m bored now, wake me up when someone says something new.
@PZ
[edit]
Ray, yes, I said something about needing to move over to the errant journalists topic, above somewhere. I will. Promise.
Roses are red…………
Oh dear god Wonderist – that’s it.
I have to expand the new rule.
If you have mental health “issues” or “triggers” or “victim status” or any other such special condition that could make certain comments extra unpleasant for you…………..then please don’t comment here, because I can’t be responsible for that. This rule is not an example of “victim shaming.” Thank you for your co-operation.
Of course it was an honest mistake, but she said herself that the correction was more than a minor nitpick in this context.
Off the top of head, one significant aspect Watson raised was, building on her earlier discussion of how she hadn’t originally thought of herself as a feminist or of sexism as being a significant problem in the movement, when she started to get more involved and heard from other women about their experiences with sexism, she listened to them – didn’t dismiss, mock, ignore, suspiciously interrogate, etc. She just mentioned it casually and I don’t think in the sense of bragging, but it’s an important point that would seem to be obvious but to which a good number of people are, tellingly, resistant. She also talked about her recent talks on the connection between atheism/fighting religion and feminism, which people commenting on this blog should certainly appreciate.
***
This is the sort of ridiculous comment (well, one of them) I’ve lost patience for.
Cheers, Ophelia! This thing — or really several related things — is consuming an awful lot of smart-people’s time and energy, but “we” (I’m just a spectator) don’t seem to be getting anywhere. Meanwhile, the world goes on.
I hear you, Ophelia, but I do not understand what you mean. The McGraw incident (and how it was handled) is the root cause of this minor disagreement turning into a shitstrom. Am I wrong on that?
Is it inappropriate to keep bringing up the facts as reported by those involved, when later commentors skip relevant details which skew the presentation of what happened?
Imagine for one moment, what the atheist blogosphere would look like today if RW and SM had engaged in a blog debate about this issue of their disagreement. There may have been a long and productive conversation, but I severely doubt it would have blown up to the point where RD felt any need to comment on it (in an attempt to bring perspective). If perspective had been kept from the beginning, this mess would not exist.
Is it wrong to keep bringing it back to this crucial point of origin? I took your post as expressing regret about how this has turned out, and (I suppose) looking for ways this could have been avoided, or how to avoid it in the future. IMO, if you tackle that root problem of reacting irrationally to differences of opinion, then you will tackle the problem of such escalated shitstorms. Isn’t that a relevant point in this discussion?
If you explain to me what’s wrong with my posts, I’ll try to adjust how I post, or else refrain from posting altogether. Right now I’m trying to keep my personal opinion out of it as much as possible. Is that not enough?
Yes. You, Blackford and some others think we should all focus on that and only discuss that part of the incident and are objectively wrong to focus on anything else. At the same time, some of us are more interested in why Watson’s “Guys, don’t do that” advice was widely interpreted as “No one is allowed to find me attractive or I will report them for rape and all men are sexist pigs and no one should ever enjoy sex, ever!”
See?
That’s abundantly clear. Or you’re trolling.
They’re repetitive, obsessive, long, and irritating. Choose the latter, for the love of whatever.
Oddly enough, the other biggest…I don’t know what word to use…dust ups? I’ve seen over the last few years in terms of blog/internet circles have all been over triggers.
My impression is that it isn’t only about “safety”. There’s a large part of it that’s about objectification. It’s a topic that’s been brought up a few times that I can remember, the idea that women might not feel comfortable at conferences due to worries and incidents where they feel they’re being objectified, and that’s a real problem. I agree, it is a real problem. But it’s not a problem that you’re going to see fixed very easily, and it’s not something that obviously everybody (of both genders) agrees IS a problem. And to be honest, I don’t think that disagreeing that it is a problem automatically makes one sexist, or is a sexist PoV. (although one might disagree for sexist reasons) I agree with it largely because I’m an introvert and I understand how unwanted contact can make someone feel uncomfortable.
But I think that the two issues are being basically mixed together into something where it’s very hard to know who addressing what at any given time.
My personal take on it, is that McGraw was addressing mostly the objectification part of it. Not so much the safety part. People assumed she was addressing the safety part, and was saying that cornering someone in an elevator is OK. Begin shitstorm. Which is why you have at this point everybody arguing right past each other. It’s two separate arguments going on in the same space using the same terms pretty much. Not exactly a formula for great conversation, really.
That is a false statement. That is not what I think. I definitely think those other things should be discussed and focused on. But that is a separate issue as to how this got escalated into a shitstorm. Ophelia’s post here seems to express exasperation regarding the escalation into a shitstorm. So, my responses are focusing on the origins of it.
Hypothesis: It became a shitstorm due to repeated (from the very beginning) instances of people interpreting differences of opinion as being motivated by various negative personality traits, and then taking those assumptions as true, and then spreading those mischaracterizations around as if they were facts. Alternatively, they could have engaged in rational discourse to check their assumptions first, and would have found out that in most cases those imagined motivations were false assumptions.
I keep bringing it back to the McGraw incident because that is the first clear example of this pattern. Of course, there have been repeats of the same pattern on both sides of the issue, which just makes it worse, obviously. But if we’re looking for ways to avoid this in the future, you have to nip this kind of thing in the bud because it grows and grows so quickly.
I’m willing to hear opposing views to my hypothesis, and we can look at the evidence, but telling me I need to see a doctor is actually just more of the same pattern I’m describing. You don’t know anything about me, and yet make such ad homs as if they are an effective counter-argument. They are not. They’re just fallacies.
Wonderist,I’m sorry I was being mean. I just really think you’re focusing on way too many details that are irrelevant to the big issues. My post about McGraw accusing Watson of hypocrisy was aimed primarily at Blackford and Kazez who were trying to paint Watson as disrespectful and mean, and McGraw as innocent and “civil.” You could argue that either both of them were disrespectful, or neither was (and maybe remind yourself that McGraw was the first to actually address and criticize Watson directly, rather than the other way around), but I think it’s glaringly biased to paint one of them as an angel and other as the devil.
And anyway, I think focusing on that issue (i.e., Watson vs. McGraw) is actually far less relevant and deserving to become the hot topic, since it’s really just about misdemeanors between two individuals, while the overwhelming, wildly disproportionate response to Watson’s video is truly troubling and indicative of far more worrying things. I find it ridiculous that we are being told that we should focus on how one person was mean to another, and meanwhile ignore a very serious issue of how incredibly badly a woman’s suggestion concerning men’s inappropriate behavior is received in a purportedly rational community.
@Tea,
Hear, hear.
GAH! No. The shitstorm had already started over Rebecca’s comment about the guy propositioning her in the elevator at 4am. The McGraw stuff brought that comment to a wider audience. Most of that audience did NOT listen to the original comment themselves and started going nuts because they thought they were being told to never hit on women anywhere, ever or they thought “Oh-My-God-How-Will-I-Ever-Get-Laid if I can’t ask a woman for “coffee” in an enclosed space at 4 AM????? OHMYGOD, now I’m doomed to be a single, shy, lonely guy forevar!!!!
And there was a side dish of “it was just coffee.” He didn’t mean sex. Blech.
Laughing madly…not for the first time.
Talk about a false dichotomy. It’s elevator hit at 4 a.m. or it’s nothing! Omigodomigodomigod!!!!
My post about McGraw accusing Watson of hypocrisy was aimed primarily at Blackford and Kazez who were trying to paint Watson as disrespectful and mean, and McGraw as innocent and “civil.”
Tea, I said nothing whatever about McGraw!
And anyway, I think focusing on that issue (i.e., Watson vs. McGraw) is actually far less relevant and deserving to become the hot topic
I actually agree, which is why I’ve said nothing whatever about Watson vs. McGraw.
I don’t really think Watson was simply “disrespectful and mean,” but rather I think there was a series of events that led up to Dawkins’ outburst at Pharyngula, and I think you probably have to trace the whole thing to understand him. I may be wrong, but my speculation is that the series starts with the Kirby panel. Dawkins was sitting next to Watson when she derailed (yes, derailed) the later panel on communicating atheism so she could respond to Kirby. She does come across as dismissive when she uses the words “ignorant” and “privileged” (I explained what I mean in comment #130). She does then focus on some things that are relatively small, in the grand scheme of things–certainly put next to the horrors associated with religious misogyny (both on the panel and in the later video).
Plus, her argument is not just that atheist men can do dumb, sexist things (sure, and they should stop!), but she presents this as an explanation of why there are so few women at atheist meetings. She says that at her blog today as well. That’s a pretty strong thing to say, and there are certainly many other possible explanations. Looking at the whole series of events, I can see why Dawkins felt impatient. He did go overboard dismissing her, though, and then other men went even more overboard and then she went overboard attacking Dawkins, and then and then and then…
Anyhow, I said nothing at all about McGraw.
Not to worry. All the shoovers and makers will fall into each other’s arms and make peace tomorrow, and the rest of us will sit around glaring at each other suspiciously from now to doomsday. Fun times.
That’s what I thought too – what Jean said – that it started with Watson v Kirby. RD and PK are friendly or friends. And then there’s the Maryam Namazie factor – the way her speech could easily have made RD think the problems of two little feminists don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. It might well have had the same effect on me had I been there – something like “Yes, I know, and ordinarily I’d agree, but…”
meanwhile the eaglets from the Norfolk Botanical Gardens are due to be released into the wild next month
http://www.wvec.com/marketplace/microsite-content/eagle-cam.html
There’s one thing RW said in the skepchick post that I think is wrong, and could help explain some of the talking past.
1. The first part is vastly too broad. It’s just not the case that all feminists in the west have been staunch allies of the women being brutalized elsewhere, because it’s not the case that all such feminists even pay enough attention to that subject. I know this damn well because I used to pay not enough attention.
2. The second part is thus dubious at best, because in fact Richard Dawkins has not been idle on this subject. Sure some western feminists have done more than Dawkins, because they’re at it full time, but western feminists in general, or all western feminists counted one by one – not really.
Dawkins isn’t a phony on this subject. RW is wrong about that part.
@Tea
I’m focusing on the origin of the escalation into a shitstorm. I consider this one of the big issues here. So big that it’s got RD being accused of being a misogynist on major media, when he’s not.
Since I can’t speak for Blackford or Kazez, I’ll interpret this as if it had been directed at me. First, it is not my position or intent that one was an angel, and one was a devil. That’s another assumption about motivation that, if you were to ask Blackford and Kazez, I expect that they would agree with me that that is not their position either.
[edit – too long yet again – this one issue not worth an encyclopedia]
I have to expand the new rule.
If you have mental health “issues” or “triggers” or “victim status” or any other such special condition that could make certain comments extra unpleasant for you…………..then please don’t comment here, because I can’t be responsible for that. This rule is not an example of “victim shaming.” Thank you for your co-operation.
No! I’ve been called a loony, even self-described. I have plenty of triggers, hate bullying for example. Not sure about victim status. Should I get all whiny about being excluded?
I have to say, I’m still with Ophelia on this. PZ’s post seemed to me to be around the mark. I think Russell is a top bloke, but on this I’ve found him, and Miranda (who I also consider a smart cooky, and generally top person) to be a little to quick to dismiss RW as nasty or attacking. I don’t want to engage in amatuer psychologizing as to why, I’ve just found some of their comments to be a little glib or provocative. I do howerver have a degree in psychology, and if someone would throw me a fiver for the effort I could engage in ‘professional’ psychological analysis, but it would just be as shite as the amatuer version.
Speaking of glib comments. I just reread mine. I need to learn how to express in the English language in a way that is sort of, expressive of what I mean without faux-pas all over the place. Never happen.
Since I can’t speak for Blackford or Kazez, I’ll interpret this as if it had been directed at me. First, it is not my position or intent that one was an angel, and one was a devil. That’s another assumption about motivation that, if you were to ask Blackford and Kazez, I expect that they would agree with me that that is not their position either.
As I said above (#197), I’ve never said a single thing about McGraw.
If it was just about those two people, I would agree. But it’s not. They’re just the earliest and clearest example of a pattern of behaviour that permeates the whole shitstorm: Assuming the other person “doesn’t get it” because they’re an asshole that needs to be cut down to size. (Or variations on that basic theme.)
It happens on both sides, and it feeds on itself, causing repeated escalations. And it’s irrational, so the antidote is to re-assert rational discourse. (IMO)
For example, I would wager that the “wildly disproportionate response to Watson’s video” you are talking about is actually just another version of the same pattern of behaviour. If you had any specific examples in mind, I would be interested to see if my hypothesis holds for those as well. I’m betting it will, but could be wrong of course.
Well, I for one have never told anybody that. I think we should also tackle the serious issue of how RW’s EG incident is treated badly. However, to get anywhere in that effort, it will require approaching it rationally, and avoiding: Assuming negative motives and character flaws in those who happen to disagree, treating those assumptions as facts, and stating those assumptions as facts, without checking our assumptions first.
As I’ve said from the very very beginning (literally my first post on this topic), the shitstorm arose from the same pattern of behaviour repeated on both sides. Tackle that problem and we’ll tackle one of the biggest obstacles to us seriously dealing with the issue of sexism.
The reason I keep bringing it back to the McGraw incident is not because I think that’s the only example of wrong-doing. It’s because I think it’s the first and clearest example. If we would like to avoid these shitstorms in the future, those are the kinds of incidents we should be on the lookout for. You can only stop a shitstorm from arising if you catch it early.
Neither have I, I’m pretty sure. I’m just not very interested in that angle. Plus once people started shouting at me for not saying anything about McGraw, I came over all stubborn.
Oh nooooooo – Wonderist stop it.
Yes, we all have to try to “understand” him. He can’t possibly be expected to explain himself. I’m so tired of this.
She was giving a talk at the student meeting about the Religious Right’s attacks on women, ffs. Which Dawkins also completely ignored in his comments. She spent about a minute talking about the elevator incident in that video. and I don’t give a fig what you or any man think I should spend time talking or writing about, especially not my own damn experiences. She never said or implied that these issues weren’t relatively small compared to FGM, but the everyday experiences of women in the community are important to us.
I’m disturbed (and find it truly revealing) that anyone thinks Dawkins’ assumption that he should be telling women that they shouldn’t be talking about the sexism in their community because there are attacks on Planned Parenthood and Plan B or talking about these when women in other countries face worse and abortion is totally illegal (ignoring that these aren’t exactly issues feminists have ignored), or that he was somehow “defending” Kirby, is some sort of justification for his remarks. It’s not. It’s worse than if he’d just been clueless. It would confirm him as an arrogant sexist who thinks he can tell women what their priorities are (with regard to issues concerning women!) and if they don’t go along he’ll belittle and “scold” them, and who doesn’t think women can debate these issues without his brilliant guidance. That is totally unacceptable. This is a foolish argument from you, but not much more foolish than you’ve made in the past, so I’m not surprised.
One part of the picture. The question of sexism being a problem in the movement is more than evidenced by the response to Watson’s reasonable and proportionate response to this incident, but she knew that before because she’s talked to other women and had to deal with it herself. She was the organizer of skeptic events in Boston. Like many others, after what I’ve read from numerous men about this on the blogs, even if they’re a small portion of the men attending these events, I do not want to go and I want to distance myself from it. So there’s a real Exhibit for you, Jean, not that you’d know the difference.
She does not say it’s the only explanation. Your misinterpretation of her words (and those of others in the past) should lead anyone to suspect that you simply can’t read.
Oh, of course! Stupid women were talking about issues of concern to themselves and other women and he, a man, didn’t think they should be! A petulant outburst is totally understandable in these circumstances! In the future I’ll have to remember to consult with more men before I raise any issue of concern to me or share my experiences. I don’t think so.
She did not, and I hate this idiotic idea that any time someone does something wrong the wronged person had to have done something wrong, too. Sometimes people are actually wronged through no fault of their own. This is the same deferential stupidity you apply to accommodationism and now you’re simply applying it to sexism. It’s sad.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree here. I do not think that labeling Kirby’s remarks an “argument from ignorance” and an “argument from privilege” was polite and respectful. Come to think of it, if you do, why did you tweet “Ooh. Schism. @rebeccawatson goes after Paula Kirby on privilege” when she used those phrases during the meeting…?
I also opine that Watson is misrepresenting Kirby. Watson explicitly claimed that Kirby “doesn’t have a problem with sexism in the atheist community and, because of that, she assumes that there is no sexism.” This is not what Kirby said –as you know from having attended both presentations.
What Kirby said was that, in her “years of being part of all this,” she has “seen nothing to suggest” that “women are being deliberately held back by the men in the movement” of atheism. That is not equivalent to saying there is “no sexism.” Far from it!
Does Watson feel that she has, in fact, been “deliberately held back” from participating fully in the atheist movement by male advocates? If so, that is not what she addressed in her rebuttal to Kirby. I don’t recall her giving even even one example of how, unlike Kirby, she has been discriminated against in that manner. Instead, she gave a rambling description of the sexual harassment, sexist e-mails, and misogynous threats that she has experienced in her blog, in e-mail messages, and in person –from atheists and non-atheists alike.
Although I was interested in what Watson had to say about those experiences, and can appreciate her passion for feminism, I wish that she had not decided to depart from the assigned topic of the panel, as I do not believe that is why she was invited to participate on it. Moreover, I think it would have been more appropriate to have simply addressed Kirby privately. Instead, she exaggerated another’s words to fit her own agenda.
I almost get the impression that, during Kirby’s talk, Watson wasn’t thinking too clearly. After all, you will remember that you also tweeted before the session started that Watson: “mocked me for being a responsible adult last night, but I notice she hasn’t made it to the morning.” And then when she tweeted back that she was “In the back row by the door,” your response was: “How’s the head? Will you be able to keep up? I can get you an aspirin, poor dear.” I might be mistaken, but it sounds like she was somewhat hung over from a previous night in that same infamous bar.
I find it most interesting that the schism you prophesized has now come to pass, also sucking Dawkins into the quagmire. If you would like to read my diatribe about the whole enchilada, see here: “Ruminations on Sexism“. A much more enjoyable perspective, however, is “Mr. Deity and the Opposition.” I expect you will tweet it!
By the way, any idea which of these guys is the elevator sexist?
She didn’t say all Western feminists, or that he’d been idle, or that he’s a phony. She said feminists in the West have been staunch defenders – not every one, but large numbers (she also noted that one of the emails she showed was in response to a post by her about FGM) – and that they’ve done a lot more than he has.* And this is true. It’s also true that some atheist/skeptic men don’t really give a shit about those women, but use their suffering cynically in their attacks on religion, treating them as passive, voiceless objects. I know this because I linked recently to posts from a few years ago by a guy who’d been on those tirades over the months in which he admitted that that was what he was doing. I also know it because I and others have spent years talking about and giving links to women’s organizations in these parts of the world, and they’ve been consistently ignored.
But this is pretty much irrelevant. He has no place telling women what they shouldn’t be talking about. None. Women should never be ridiculed or told to stop talking about not being treated as full people, especially not in the name of other women’s rights to be treated as full people.
*And the fact that she said we’ve collectively done a lot more than he has clearly suggests that she thinks he’s done something.
Jean, I’m sorry I misremembered what exactly you were saying – I knew it was about Watson being disrespectful, I forgot it had nothing to do with McGraw.
So is anyone proposing to define “sexism” with specific clarity and inquire into these charges of sexism in the “atheist community” with some methodical, unbiased rigor? Are we declaring sexism unusually rampant in the “community” or just as prevalent as in the rest of society? Or less prevalent, but still unacceptably high in a group that yearns to be seen as unusually rational? Is anything measurable here, or are we at the mercy of anecdotes, hand-waving generalizations, knee-jerk sensitivities, political agendas and so forth? Are we really talking about the broader atheist community, or just the ones who join organizations and attend conventions? USA only or across cultures? Upper crust only or working class? Are we scooping up “skeptics” and “humanists” indiscriminately under this rubric, or are we going to make meaningful distinctions between a theological position, an epistemic approach, and a broad ethical philosophy? Will we talk about the role of habitual alcohol use in the social milieu and expression of sexual impulses? Will we address the role of such factors as autism-spectrum personality types, and their presumed over-representation in the community? Will we discuss causes and realistic cures for undesirable behavior and attitudes, or will our method be to simply shout “Don’t be a sexist dick!” at anyone we perceive to be not getting it? What’s the coordinated strategy here? Or are we just going to keep banging around like a Bozo circus?
If Dawkins was offended at Watson calling Kirby’s argument one “from ignorance” — and I stress that this is all speculation by commenters, as Dawkins has said nothing of the kind — it would be awfully hypocritical. Dawkins has repeatedly defended his own use of the word “ignorant” as being a perfectly civil term to describe someone’s lack of knowledge and not (or at least not necessarily) an insult. I think he’s technically right about that, but it’s still a word that one has to be careful about using because so many people do take it as an insult.
Salty, no, true, she didn’t say all western feminists, but I think that’s how it reads.
I agree with you about men telling women what they can say, especially after having a week of it myself, and seeing a lot more of it during that week…but I also still
and blah blah blah. I’ll be closing comments soon. I didn’t mean to trigger another meta-discussion of the whole thing – I meant it to be about the new twists.
Mostly the latter, I think, which doesn’t describe me, so I don’t know why I’m paying any attention. Good point. Time to close comments.
@Godless Heathen
I use ‘shitstorm’ to refer to people making unfounded accusations against one another, leading to largescale vilification, escalation, and entrenchment on both sides.
The comments on the video were largely anonymous and usually just expressed a different opinion. Yes, some were over-the-top misogyny, and others were examples of the escalation pattern I’ve been describing. It’s of course worth going after the actual misogyny and sexism that occurred. But this kind of thing has occurred many times before, and it never got to the point of people Dawkins getting involved and caught up in the vilification.
This kind of thing would have run its course on its own, probably with RW unambiguously coming out way ahead. In fact, it had already been through the blogosphere once (the AronRa video) and didn’t get Pharyngulated. What gave it extra juice was the McGraw incident, when several attendees and others took issue with Watson’s treatment of McGraw. At this point, we have a clear example of the escalation pattern against someone who states herself that she was grossly misrepresented and was not in any way supportive of misogyny, nor was she ‘anti-woman’.
This was again escalated with the Naming Names post, et voila, the shitstorm ensues.
Why was this the beginning of the shitstorm and not before? Because people (many feminists among them) who spoke up defending McGraw got tarred with the same brush as the actual misogynists and sexists. In fact, that’s the brush that McGraw herself got tarred with. This is when the assuming of malicious intentions got so out of whack that feminists were attacking feminists as anti-woman, when really it was a matter of difference of opinion over a hot topic.
The same pattern of vilification is evident with the treatment of Richard Dawkins. I’ll note that Rebecca Watson has herself been a victim of such vilification. That is why I’m attempting to leave out my personal opinion and only report Watson’s actions, rather than speculate as to her motives. In the end, the motives don’t make much of a difference, it’s the behaviour that perpetuates the cycle.
(I’m signing off on this topic. Thanks to those who took me at face value and refrained from ad homs and the like. That’s the kind of rational discourse that will defuse these shitstorms in the future if we catch them early enough.)
[The piece on privilege that Jen links to at Blag Hag is quite good as an introduction for people who read “privileged” as an accusation.]
I think it reads like if a religious person were to mock, say, Dawkins for talking about misrepresentations of his work when creationists are powerful in US schools, and Dawkins were to say, “Atheists have been staunch defenders of secularism in education, and they’ve done a hell of a lot more than you when it comes to promoting it.” There just seems to me to be a tendency in all of this to read her words in an uncharitable, decontextualized way.
That would be more than fine with me. As I did in my email, I want to thank you for posting about this so thoughtfully and providing a forum for discussion. We haven’t always agreed, and we’ve both been hurt in all of this (not by each other, of course), but I appreciate that you did it.
Oi, the twitter thing was all wrong, PZ tells me – he and Watson do teases like that and that was just typical teasing. They were both at the events from the start of the day and they were both actively involved in the discussions.
So scratch that misconception.
[…] Well duh, but I’ve never done that. I haven’t complained that Richard Dawkins is “an old white guy.” I’ve objected when other people do, even when they are friends and/or allies. […]
[…] of Rebecca Watson. I’m misrepresenting Ophelia or something because I wasn’t aware of this comment from July […]