Exciting news for all us clowns who thought the CFI Women in Secularism conference in DC next May seemed like a good idea – Abbie is going to tell is why it’s not.
Tommy– I will probably start some shit again this weekend re: the ridiculousness of the CFI conference.
There are lols on at the CFI blog. Not lulz, just lols. Maybe some *facepalms*.
Posted by: ERV | August 5, 2011 11:22 PM
That should be good for another few thousand cuntstwatsfuckingbitchessmellysnatches. Will Russell comment to say “Naughty Abbie!” again? Will Miranda comment to say what she finds condescending about two comments at B&W again? Will Jeremy do a post to say that calling a defense of the use of twat as an epithet “misogynist” is the antithesis of anything that could be considered free inquiry again?
Should we start placing bets?
Update: I didn’t realize Miranda had already commented on the subject – as poisonously as you like.
And I’d hate to know that I was invited to a conference simply because I have the appropriate genitalia. I want to be recognized for whatever merit there may be in the things I do/write, not how oppressed and/or under-represented I supposedly am.
Flattering to Susan Jacoby, Annie Laurie Gaylor, Margaret Downey, Sikivu Hutchinson, Wafa Sultan, and the rest. Yes they were all invited simply because they have the appropriate genitalia. What a reasonable, generous, fair-minded claim.
Godalmighty.
Comments
1,014 responses to “More dog whistle”
I think we’ll hear a lot of sour grapes along the lines of “I want to be recognized for what I do, not for my genitals” from those who were not invited despite their genitals. Also, the “we are all equals now, so stop whining” advocates seem to be auditioning for the Michelle Rodriguez “I’m tougher than the boyz” role, forgetting the invariable fate of the characters she plays.
That might apply to some, but I doubt it applies to Miranda – she doesn’t write all that much about atheism and she doesn’t want to be seen as “a prominent atheist” or whatever the category is supposed to be. This looks to me like sheer unadulterated pissyness, pissyness for its own sake. Ars gratia artis.
Great. Happy to ignore you.
The bridge of comradeship and reasoned discourse with Abbie Smith and Miranda Hale is well and truly burnt. And what does it matter anyway? They are nurturing a few obssessed grievance mongers and seem incapable of rising above their petty jealousies. This is the point where the adults should just stride ahead and leave the brats to their tantrums. It’d be better to ignore them.
Oh, I suppose. [grumble grumble grumble]
It’s just that these aren’t Tea Party types. There’s such a weird fascination in their…journey off the rails.
Imagine:
Similar stupid, hateful response?
I doubt it.
Salty – I know. I asked myself – would Miranda say that about a conference of African-Americans in Secularism? I do not think so.
I suppose next it will be said the invited women were all born in Kenya.
From this crowd, maybe but I’ve met an unfortunate number of otherwise intelligent non whites who’d say similar things. Use to be one myself.
While I can see from all the reading these past few weeks the need for this conference (and I wish I could be there), I do hope that someday there won’t be such a need, a day when Miranda’s complaint would actually have more merit.
And it is not just an animus towards Watson is it? Apart from Mcgraw, their hearts do not bleed for any woman. It is being pretty nasty to a whole lot of women – mocking them as femtards, being sarcastic about their achievements or now, again reducing a whole lot of superb, strong women to their genitals. No perspective or maturity or sense of charity. Sad.
Noted without comment: apparently Miranda considers ‘fuck you’ “really hurtful“.
It does look suspiciously like a case of “I don’t want to be in a club that would accept me as a member!”
Whew…what a nasty place over there. I needed some warning before being plunged into such a cesspool. So much hysteria…so much namecalling. What’s wrong with these people? Is this all from Rebecca Watson’s very inoffensive remarks about the guy in the elevator? If so, I have to say that I’m not prepared to wade through the hip-deep misogyny and hatred for any cause. Yuk.
He says amidst the talk of cunts, bitches and entirely personal insults.
Abbie isn’t going to be asked to speak at skeptic talk, nor asked to join a freethought blogging group. I’m wondering how Nat Geo. is going to like her blog if this carries on.
I suppose a Women in Engineering conference would be equally ridiculous to Abbie. I mean, hey, they can all just be biologists instead. Positive sexism.
Beauzeaux ,
that you so clearly see the misogyny means that you are either a ball-busting, bullying feminazi if female or a pussywhipped smelly snatch snifter if male. It is not them.They are exemplars of reasoned and intelligent discourse. The truth speakers, the succourers of the weak, the marginalised dissidents.
Oh fuck it! I am done commenting on those two. No more.
She’s a delicate flower.
I’m sorry how is holding a different opinion going off the rails?
And why remove the “fuck you” from the original post?
@SC LOL What about Big Sisters? Bunch of women mentoring girls without the benefit of men.
Probably in how you express and advocate it.
It isn’t, but since no one has claimed it has, I cannot see your point.
Did you in fact have one ?
Oh, yeah, Melody Hensley was really scraping the bottom of the atheist barrel when she dug up that list of speakers. None of them would be let anywhere near a lectern if it weren’t for their breasts and vaginas.
Maybe some manly men should attend the conference and chat up these ladies, and make it worth their while. After all, they’re going to be terribly bored without men sharing the stage.
Although I have been an atheist since I was 13 years old, it was reading the stories of freethought and suffragist luminaries such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton that inspired me to get involved with organized secularism. This conference has been a dream of mine since. Our rich history is worth celebrating and women’s issues and secular thought are directly linked.
So, apparently Miranda is only saying that, were *she* invited to the Women in Secularism Conference, it would have *obviously* been only for the fact that she has a vagina – but when *other* people with vaginas are invited to the Women in Secularism Conference, it has nothing to do with the fact that they have vaginas.
She’s so precious.
You forgot to mention that Rebecca Watson will be at the CFI conference. That’s sure to give them all the vapors.
I know I’ve talked about this to some extent before, but it baffles me. This is how I read the perspective of Dawkins (to some extent) and others:
If you want us men to join you women (some of your lives are barely affected by religion or sexism – stop being silly) in struggling against the oppression of women, you need to accept your role as not-quite-equals in the movements. You aren’t our allies and fellow soldiers: you’re the territory on which we fight our battles with other men.
What an evocative compound noun you’ve invented Ophelia, it’s rather Teutonic.
Invite them uppity women back to their room for a cup of coffee?
Well, you can’t discount the fact that she’s part of the targeted group. A more faithful hypothetical would be: “would X say that about a conference of African-Americans in Secularism if she herself happened to be African American?” Then it’s a different question.
Emma Goldman, Voltairine de Cleyre,…
I didn’t forget, PZ, but I picked out the most unassailable Names by way of underlining the idiocy of “simply because [they] have the appropriate genitalia.”
Have I told you lately that I love you?
I think Rebecca’s analysis of objectification is incorrect and I think that she mis-characterized what Paula Kirby said about sexism. I think a personal attack on McGraw in an unrelated speech was unprofessional, and the use of “misogynist” to describe anyone who disagrees is improper. Further, I think Dawkins’ response to Rebecca was insensitive. A lot of what has just occurred in this “community” has been the antithesis of skepticism and a quagmire of pettiness and cruelty. Politics, namely gender politics, have gotten in the way of free-thought and rationality.
Have I “gone off the rails”? Does this make me a misogynist? Am I a gender traitor? An idiot? Lowlife living in a cesspool? Because I’ve been called all these things for the opinions I hold.
And guess what? I’m a woman too.
Rebecca got the response she did because of who she is, not because she’s a woman. She’s a smart, controversial, opinionated, divisive character. She’s gone from sexy, gender-epithet-spewing skeptic to strident feminist in the blink of an eye. Former objectifier of self and others, is now complaining of objectification. It’s not unusual for people like that to get lots of attention – both positive and negative, and that’s what has happened here. I don’t think that her experience as a woman in the atheist/skeptic community is typical for women. I think her experience is typical for people who act like she does. Gender is not the key – personality is.
However, I think that sexism in this community and others still exist. There are issues to be addressed, and rape threats are grossly inappropriate. Threats of rape are misogynistic and scary, even if in jest. But no one in the “community” has been making them, as far as I know. YouTube trolls are just that – trolls.
Let the name-calling begin.
And the Irony Quotient continues to increase. Abbie just referred to Ophelia as ‘hateful’.
There’s no substance here. What’s incorrect about Watson’s analysis? How did she mischaracterise Kirby? What was the personal attack, and how was the speech unrelated? Where did Watson describe anyone who disagrees as a misogynist?
And because she has a smelly snatch apparently.
Love that feminists can’t be skeptics, btw. Oh and strident feminists! I absolutely adore that.
Miranda is “hurt.” (Thanks for the link above,
SCMartinM.)Not having the thickest of skins when it comes to yourself, Miranda. Your skin seems to be plenty thick about other people. All the “fucking bitch” and “smelly snatch” and “Twatson” thrown at Rebecca Watson on Abbie’s threads haven’t elicited any senstive pained comments from you, or motivated you to stop commenting there. There’s something rather disgusting about someone who is blandly unperturbed by all that bitching and cunting but quick to complain about a “fuck you.”
And this thin skin of yours is probably at the root of some of the problem here, isn’t it. Jerry Coyne knows that about you (I know that because you’ve told me so), and that’s probably why he saw fit to shout at me because I didn’t sufficiently disagree with a criticism of you here. It’s all very precious – as if you’re made of china and therefore deserve special treatment. Well why doesn’t Rebecca deserve the most basic human respect? Because she’s made of mud or concrete?
As for “hurtful” and “fuck you” – you had just announced that I (along with the others) was asked to speak at that conference simply because I have the appropriate genitalia. I repeat: fuck you.
You and your goons over there are asking why I edited the “fuck you.” It’s obvious enough – because I decided “oh hell, try to take the slightly more adult route.” But hey, why bother, eh?
#34:
“gender politics, have gotten in the way of free-thought and rationality.”
This would be funny if it weren’t sad.
Gnu feminists.
MartinM’s.
Oh right – I scrolled up and saw your quote first.
And guess what? I’m a woman too.
You poor thing. What a burden this vagina license is turning out to be.
Substance?
1) I think Rebecca had every right to feel scared in an elevator and I empathize. But I don’t think we can conclude that objectification occurred on the facts we have. As a skeptic, I have to at least consider that the words spoken meant what they normally mean. Nor was it harassment, at least not legally speaking, and not according to the dictionary meaning of the word.
2) In her speech, Rebecca said that Paula said there was no sexism in the community. That’s not what she said.
And I am a feminist. Different school of thought, though. For the record, I don’t use gendered epithets -ever. Not even in reference. I think foul language is in bad taste.
Don’t you understand that YOUR use of gendered epithets perpetuates them?
Clown school.
GT @ 34 – in answer to all your questions in para 2 – no, certainly not. It’s perfectly possible to disagree with Rebecca without being a sexist shit about it. I disagree with her on some particulars myself. I disagreed with her somewhat more before all the cunting and bitching got going. Now…I feel that solidarity against that trumps small disagreements, at least for the moment.
By the way, I also organized the largest known conference for African American non-theists.
:-D
It’s called equity feminism, Salty.
Who is “you”?
@36
Martin, who are you to request others do work you refuse to do: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/crazy-american-bitches/#comment-103688
Note to the event organizers:
You may want to lock down the elevators and remove all coffee and cappuccino machines to avoid the possibility of potential rape.
Further you should segregate the genders so they don’t become acquainted with each other, since the potential for rape increases with the level of acquaintance.
Ophelia – thank you for responding to me in a reasonable way. I have new respect for you. As for the other responses… are they really appropriate given what I said?
I asked if we should start placing bets – but we didn’t even have time. These guys are fast.
FYI, I saw a rape threat on Watson’s own blog. She handled it quite awesomely – immediately made his ip address public. I am not at all a regular reader of skepchick but I saw that. It is not just u-tube trolls.
oh? what do you imagine “come up to my hotel room for x” “normally” means? Here, let me have Steven Pinker explain this to you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU (if you don’t have 10 minutes, the relevant bits are at 1:44 and 9:43)
GT – I see only 3 responses, and they’re not especially over the top. A bit dismissive maybe, but not rabid.
As to epithets? Well, there was “Dear Richard.” And Rebecca has used them in the past, photos show. And they’re all over this thread. I don’t like bad language in debate. I think it only takes away from otherwise valid points.
The other side (my side?) has used them too. I don’t condone that either.
I saw Miranda’s comment as about no-one but herself. There can be misunderstandings. Only today I tried to make up with an ex-friend after what I thought was a major argument, when it turns out he did not see himself in serious conflict with me. That good man is my friend again.
I don’t have thick skin. I’m pissed off that good people, important people, are attacking and being attacked. There are true battles out there that need the energy of good people like you, Ophelia. In-fighting serves no useful purpose, and justifiably looks bad to our opponents. Stop it. Please.
Normally does not mean always, and does not mean in *this* situation. Logic fail. Steven Pinker is an equity feminist.
Yes, what Jadehawk says @ 55 – I was about to say that. “My hotel room for coffee” at 4 a.m. from a man to a woman normally does mean sex. At 4 p.m. “across the street for coffee” of course would mean coffee and talk.
Melody, you rock :). Doesn’t seem to have met with the same hostility, somehow.
as opposed to what? Teh Ebil Matriarchy? *rolleyes*
pretending that negative equality and some sort of “genderblindness” is all it takes to change a culture deeply rooted in sexism and create equality is…. well, it’s downright libertarian
Gender epithets are all over this thread? The hell they are.
I am sorry for mangling Steven Pinker’s name. Not on purpose, I swear
Psst.
This might be one of them.
Funny that…
Be a little more disingenuous, Steve.
Fixed, Jadehawk.
@Ophelia – in “quotes.” I’m just making an observation. I don’t mean any offense. I understand why people feel as they do. And I love PZ and agree with most of what he says. I don’t think anyone should be vilified. I do know where you’re coming from.
As for what the elevator language means, lots of others, including me, disagree. So the issue is, at least, debatable. Moreover, personal anecdotes are inherently unreliable as evidence of anything.
While no one has the right to criticize Rebecca’s emotional response, it’s certainly not a crime to suggest that a different interpretation of the language is possible.
<blockquote>Normally does not mean always, and does not mean in *this* situation. Logic fail. Steven Pinker is an equity feminist.</blockquote>”normally” means “the way it is generally used” and “would you like to come to my hotelroom for x” is “normally” a sexual proposition; even Steven Pinker knows that, “equity” feminist or not.
I think you meant “literally”, not “normally”. But to take what people say literally is not skeptical, it’s silly. Because humans don’t talk literally and context is absolutely always necessary to understand what a person said. Because humans communicate in meta-messages. What are you, new to human society?
Equity feminism : be equally fast as some men to stick it to a woman.
ok, I’m having some serious editing fails today :-p
Well excuse the hell out of me for not following an old thread closely enough for your personal satisfaction.
Jadehawk: tell that to Steven Pinker. You were the one who brought him up. Or are Steven Pinker’s views right when you want them to be and wrong when I want them to be?
Geez, Jadehawk – you’re so tech illiterate! :P
@40
I prefer Woo Feminists….
GT, sorry, I don’t follow you about the gender epithets. You seemed to be criticizing, not just making an observation.
And no, it’s not a crime to interpret the elevator invitation differently, but it does seem remarkably disingenuous. Yes a strained interpretation is possible but the obvious one is that it’s what it looks like – a thinly veiled invitation to knock boots.
To be certain of what someone else is thinking is not skeptical. That is the key problem. Certainty.
This must be a new form of scepticism in which all interpretations are considered equally plausible, and Occam’s razor be damned. Perhaps we could call it equity scepticism.
Tell what to him? HE knows how innuendos work.
Erm… you do know that no one is right about everything, right? Pinker is right on this, and (per your claim that he’s an “equality feminist”; I wouldn’t know what he is or isn’t) wrong on how to fight systemic sexism. I don’t need to accept everything a person says just because they’re right about some things. That wouldn’t be very skeptical, would it now.
Funny how the trolls are so equally adept at bringing the conversation back to same starting point – it was just Watson’s personality and emotional issues, when we have gone far beyond the initial spark. they just pretend not to notice the raging forest fire of misogyny that spark lit.
I’m either criticizing no one for using gendered epithets or everyone who has used them. In general, I think everyone can scrutinize their own language use to decide what is appropriate and what isn’t. But certainly, they’re not appropriate to use in professional circumstances, and maybe we should hold that to be the norm in our discussions? I don’t know, I’ll go with whatever you decide on that one, since I can’t even bring myself to write those words. Silly, I know. But I also don’t find them personally offensive.
GT @ 78 – I didn’t say anything about certainty.
Sometimes a strained interpretation is fruitful. Most of the time it gets you stuff like Intelligent Design.
GT, I haven’t been using them. Attribution is different from use.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh – Gender Traitor is blue harmony. A visitor from World of Abbie.
Naughty GT. You should have been forthright.
By the way Steve, have you said “Stop it” to Abbie and Miranda? Or just me.
Is GT lecturing others besides us barbarians about professional demeanor? Or is this another demonstration of dissecting gnats and swallowing camels?
:D
Some body help me with my memory, wasn’t someone banned from TAM for planning to cop a feel off Ms Watson on twitter in response to her handling of elevator guy?
There is nothing reasonable about ignoring what a situation would mean 99 out of 100 times. Holding out for that 1% is not skeptical. Nor is anyone here saying it’s impossible for EG to have not been propositioning Ms Watson only that given popular parlance and the situation it seems unlikely he meant anything else. That’s an entirely valid conclusion to make.
And what exactly does any of this have to do with all the misogyny aimed at Ms Watson and that, to several of the top figures in skepticism, seem entirely ok and not worth getting fussy about? A sentiment you seem to share.
So Pinker is right in your case and wrong in mine. That’s logical. See wiki and the referenced sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_and_gender_feminism.
Now for having a different opinion, I’m a troll. Is Pinker a troll too? You guys sure love name-calling.
It was forthright enough – wasnt that nym a flaming giveaway?
Actually, the problem is the lack of certainty. Creepiness wouldn’t exist if I could read people’s minds and know which ones are actually dangerous.
In any case, the specific intent doesn’t even matter. Even if EG was a real-life version of one of those doofus comedy stock-characters who say innocuous things using phrases and conventions meaning completely other, non-innocuous things for comedic effect, he still ignored her already clearly stated wishes, and he still didn’t bother to think for two seconds how it feels to be invited to a complete stranger’s hotelroom in the middle of the night. That’s still objectification. It’s still something you’d only do if, at least subconsciously, you didn’t rate your desires and feelings higher than those of another person.
Ha – 86 and 87. That was an accident.
GT –
You’re kidding, right? You’re a regular at Abbie’s and you say we love name-calling?
Stop saying “logical”, you evidently don’t know what the word means. I’m guessing you meant “rational”; you’d still be wrong about it being irrational to not agree with everything someone says, but at least you’d be using the right terminology.
are you incapable of keeping different people apart? Or for that matter, are you incapable of telling the difference between being called a troll for disagreeing, and being called a troll for stirring shit by bringing up an issue utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand?
@gendred
If I were to walk into a discussion of racism in community x, while using the nym uncle tom and telling everyone not to get their panties in a bunch, it would be difficult to argue I was not acting like a troll. Everything from the name to the actions scream troll. Like I said before, being a skeptic doesn’t mean holding out for that 1%.
pfffffft
of course. being called a troll once is totally equivalent to having an entire thread call you a slut and a drunk, and denigrate your genitals in graphic detail. Equity offensiveness, you know.
Ophelia wrote:
Ophelia, perhaps you should have softened the blow by adding something gender specific. “Fuck you” is just so troublingly gender-neutral.
Gender Traitor wrote:
That is beside the point. Watson made no claim to read minds, nor did anything hinge on exactly what Elevator Guy was literally thinking. The point was behavior that contributed to a sense of objectification–and by the way, when you’re not objectifying someone in your mind it’s less likely you’ll behave in a way that does contribute to that sense.
GT wrote:
The “and I’m a woman too” bit is not exactly a big reveal nor does it earn you credibility. As an exercise, try going through the comments on this video and count the commenters saying “I am female and I agree with this video completely”. “And I’m a woman too” rings increasingly hollow. Note that I’m not agreeing with those who have apparently called you a gender traitor in other contexts.
Julian – I do not share that sentiment. Please see my original post. To the extent there are rape threats those are highly inappropriate.
It’s not 99/100. Lots of us see it differently. Lots of us would have interpreted it differently. It seems to me the only hope EG had of getting to know Rebecca (a celebrity) was to ask her to do something then and there. I concede that what he did say was dumb. But he specifically said, “Don’t take this the wrong way.”
If I said to Ophelia, “Don’t take this the wrong way, but I think you’re extremely attractive.” What would that mean to you? Because my intent would be to convey a lack of sexual interest because I’m sexually interested in men.
Moreover, sexual attraction is different from sexual objectification. We have no evidence that he didn’t want something other than sex, and objectification means treating and using someone as a sex object exclusively. In fact, given that Rebecca is a very interesting person and he had been listening to her all day, I think it’s quite probable that he did really want to get to know her.
In any case, different interpretations are possible, and I don’t think you have any empirical evidence to support your claim that it means “let’s have sex” 99 times out of a 100. I wasn’t there. I didn’t hear his tone, or see his gestures. For all I know he was being sarcastic. I just can’t say based on an anecdote. All I can do is empathize with any feelings of fear or intimidation Rebecca had.
Jadehawk: I brought up that issue because someone asked me for substance. What about my first post was irrelevant to the issue at hand? Anyway, have fun making fun of me for being so dumb. You win.
If Rebecca said that she felt objectified, that would have been accurate. But that’s not what she said.
Who was that?
As Rebecca very sensibly said, starting with “Don’t take this the wrong way” is an obvious signal that something obnoxious is about to follow. I sure as hell don’t take it as a solid gold guarantee of good intentions.
Hey GT now that we know you’re blue harmony – run along, ok? You’ve had your chance and you’re not interesting.
when you have to start making stuff up, you’ve pretty much already lost the discussion. EG was at the bar, and was part of the group of skeptics that RW had also been part of, but he never spoke to her. He could have tried to engage her at the bar. so no, following her into an elevator was not “the only hope” he had of getting to know her.And even if that had not been the case, he could have asked her for a coffee at the bar, or for a coffee the next morning, instead of using internationally known code for “let’s fuck”
noooo reallly?! Man, I totes didn’t know that! It’s extremely unconscionable that Rebecca didn’t take that possibility into consideration! and really, maybe someone should make a website about this.
oh. wait.
I’m sure your empathy has driven you to denounce the hate-fest against her over at ERV </sarcasm>
I wasn’t trying to hide who I was. And logical means “Characterized by clear, sound reasoning.” I’m not the one who has sock puppet accounts. I gave you my email when I have lots of others. Bye.
I would just like to point out that EG clearly knew that his words could be taken as an invitation for sex or he wouldn’t have said “Don’t take this the wrong way”. So either he propositioned Watson at four in the morning in an elevator after Watson basicaly spent the day saying not to do stuff like that or he asked her for coffee knowing that it could come across as propositioning her at four in the morning, in an elevator after she spent all day saying not to do stuff like that.
Why does he have to get to know her?
Most of the time we reason, we reason in probability because we don’t really have any way to be absolutely certain about a lot of things. Sure, it’s possible that the elevator guy actually wanted to have coffee with Rebecca Watson, but I think that interpretation of the events doesn’t take into account the situation surrounding the event and what people generally mean in that situation. And even if he sincerely wanted her to come up for coffee, it is still creepy to trap someone in an elevator and ask them to come up for a caffeinated beverage when said person has said they are tired and expressed a desire to go to bed. It’s definitely not respecting a person’s wishes.
And saying, “hey don’t do that,” is a perfectly reasonable response to an action such as that. Especially if you would think your audience might care about other people’s feelings. Unfortunately, we have learned that there are a lot of people that don’t care about other people’s feelings, so asking them not to do something creepy is just a little too much for them. Bless their hearts.
Bye GT.
I think people have not done enough close reading of Miranda’s claim that she was just talking about herself, my goodness, of course she wasn’t talking about the women who were invited to the conference.
Another interpretive question. We’re madly hermeneuticalistic here. Is that a reasonable reading of what Miranda wrote?
Pffffffffffffffff.
Fabulist.
O RLY
I’m guessing you got your definition from Merriam-Webster, which is a descriptive dictionary (meaning, if people misuse a word often enough, it’ll make it in there. “pagan” means “atheist” according to M-W)
oooh, I’m just dying to know who you’re going to accuse of sockpuppeting. I thought “To be certain of what someone else is thinking is not skeptical”?
Yeah…no. I have to agree with the consensus opinion that ‘don’t take this the wrong way, but…’ is a phrase that telegraphs impending impropriety. Context, tone, expressions, etc can obviously enhance or suppress this to some extent, but as written, your sample phrasing is suspect. There are innumerable ways to compliment someone on some positive attribute without having them ‘take it the wrong way’. In general, if one is truly worried that one’s words might be taken the wrong way, perhaps one should consider using different words that would be less likely to cause such confusion.
Gurdur – hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
This has gone by so fast that my long comment @ 38 – a reply to Miranda, made here because she stopped answering emails from me about 3 weeks ago – got no discussion. I wanted some discussion. I’m dead serious about this business of being hugely thin-skinned about oneself and a walrus about other people.
I don’t get it. Why is it so interesting to figure out EG’s true intentions? Rebecca’s point, as I see it, was not about this particular episode, but about situations of that nature. By saying “guys, don’t do that”, she is making a general point, with the elevator episode being just an illustration. And the illustration is instructive, even if it should turn out that EG did not have sex on his mind at all. What was actually going through EG’s mind seems to me as uninteresting, in this context, as the fact that he was not inviting her for tea. What is interesting is what is going through the minds of most guys when they behave that way, and that is something about which we can have a pretty good idea.
You said, “Silly, I know. But I also don’t find them personally offensive.” when referring to gendered insults, didn’t you? If I’m interpreting that wrong I apologize but it sounds very much ike saying ‘they’re nothing to get worked up about.’
They’re also sexual harassment.
I may be on thin ice here but I’m going to say that number isn’t far off the mark. With the exception of those damning Ms Watson, I haven’t been able to find anyone who didn’t feel that phrase doesn’t carry a request for sex or couldn’t be read that way. EG himself seems to see think it too which is why he added ‘don’t take this the wrong way.’
Or at the bar by ordering her a drink which would have carried the same ‘I want to sleep with you’ vibe but lost much of the creepiness. Especially if he was this autistic, socially inept, sweetheart several have tried to argue.
There’s a lot he could have done. But as one of your numbers pointed out early on ‘he probably just didn’t want anyone to see him get rejected.’ What he did was use a phrase he knew full well could be taken to mean he wanted sex adding only the qualifier ‘don’t take this the wrong way.’ A phrase, I might add, that does little to mitigate what comes after.
That you noticed that the phrase could be interpreted as a come on and that you wanted to say it anyway but also put her at ease. If you did this while alone with her in some enclosed space pretty much out of the blue, I would not fault her or anyone for feeling the situation was creepy.
Again, he could have ordered her a drink or approached her else where. He chose to do it in a way that made Ms Watson uncomfortable.
You are correct. There are no studies or papers. But it’s one of many ‘room invitations’ that have been immortalized on television and in movies to the point where you can’t miss the association. Like a mob boss saying ‘take care of it.’ The expression can mean different things but given the situation, those involved, and the setting there’s one meaning that stands out.
maybe the point didn’t get much discussion because it was spot on :-p
seriously though, what is there to say? being ok with the sort of abuse RW has been receiving, but going to shards over a single “fuck you” after just having insulted a bunch of people is hypocritical and special pleading.
point. also, there was supposed to be a paragraph break in there somewhere. your commenting box hates me, Ophelia
I’m both autistic and socially inept. Know how I approach complete strangers for sex? I don’t.
Ophelia @115–yes, I agree with you. I can only suppose it has something to do with her actually caring about your opinion of her? That, or a touch of narcissistic personality disorder, where insults or invective directed at her are necessarily more hurtful than anything directed at other people. Whatever the case, it’s remarkably un-self-aware. But she’s hardly unique in that regard in this year’s Great Rift.
It’s the only avenue Hale has as a bland, inconsequential dolt.
It has been bugging me to no end that people were using “oh, he’s autistic” as a shield to defend his behavior. Onm the one hand, it shields men who are most certainly not autistic, but rather entitled, from criticism; on the other, it perpetuates a picture of actual autistic people that is negative and simply not true; I don’t actually know any Aspie who wouldn’t have considered what EG did to have been wrong
Thanks Jade – validation!
Much more likely to be the latter, Jen. :- ) I’m quite confident she doesn’t give a flying fuck about my opinion of her at this point.
There are plenty of people I’d like to know personally. I’m not entitled to know them personally.
Just you. I have respect for you as a significant figure in the Gnu Atheist movement. Someone who champions reason and clear thinking. Someone who others will (or at least should) follow. Someone who was a calm voice above the inane squabbling. How you ended up writing a “fuck you” post, and resorting to personal attacks rather than attacks on the message, I have no idea. But, being an atheist, I have no moral compass and so I’m selfish. Because I’m selfish I don’t want to see another voice of reason drowned out by that kind of reaction, even from yourself. So I posted that comment to you because you matter in ways that (at least for now) Miranda and Abbie don’t, and because you can be a reassuring and calming presence in the way that others can’t.
Damn elevators. We should not be in this situation. Disagreements should be dealt with by reason, not emotion and insult. If someone has posted something that looks like it is moronic, how difficult is it to actually contact that person and see what they actually intended rather than start a flame war?
I know that I’m a hypocrite. I have gone off on rants in the past. My bad. But I had hopes that others, such as you, with vastly more social and political experience, were better than me.
If I’m out of line here, I apologise. But I see what you post, and I see what Miranda posts (I don’t follow Abbie) and I wonder how the hell there could be animosity when you should be allies against religion and anti-atheism. I hope that situation is possible again in the future, and there isn’t the foul smoke from burning bridges.
All the best
Steve
Pretty god damn difficult when that person stopped answering emails from you 3 weeks ago. Miranda made an enemy of me for reasons I don’t know, after (or at the same time as) Jerry Coyne did.
And for the rest – I see – you think Miranda and Abbie don’t matter so you leave them alone, but you tell me “Stop it.” Great. Good thinking. That makes three men (or have I forgotten some?) who have taken it upon themselves to tell me what to do during all this – not counting posts about unnamed “new atheist bloggers” and the like.
Hey, Steve, ever been called a “useless, putrid twat”? Know what it’s like?
Oh, man, Gurdur…don’t even mention that guy. Back when I was involved in various internet forums, he was a kind of Typhoid Mary. Whenever he showed up and started giving narcissistic advice right and left, I knew the place was doomed if anyone paid any attention to him. He’s toxic. I wouldn’t let him near my site.
Steve: I think you’re wrong. When “significant figures” sit silent when a movement is facing an uncivil, illiberal, poisonous challenge, that only allows the problem to grow. Drawing out the venom is painful but an essential part of progress.
SC: “Why does he have to get to know her?”
Why indeed.
Fuck you. Steve. You’ll never be in that situation.
Indeed. How hard for Stef McGraw, Riuchard Dawkins, Abbie Smith, Jerry Coyne,…?
That this keeps being brought is irritating. How exactly are they being insulted, assailed and having their names sullied when Ms Watson is now nothing more than a smelly snatch to a very vocal part of the skeptic ‘movement’?
That’s my question.
Salty, I think Peter’s “why indeed” was agreeing with your sentiment. At least, that’s how I read it.
My recollection of his comments on this subject suggests otherwise. Unless he’s changed his mind. I could be mistaken.
I’ll explain – again. Miranda said
I was invited to the conference in question, so that made me angry – angry enough to say “fuck you.” What Miranda said was a calculated insult, and I responded accordingly. Yes, not very adult, which is why I changed it a few minutes later. But then Miranda said that was “hurtful” and she’s thin-skinned, so – given how very thick-skinned she has been about all the excrement thrown at Rebecca – I said it again.
Understand now?
No, Peter Beattie hasn’t changed his mind, he’s been grinding away on the crazy American bitches thread.
Think it was supposed to be read as ‘why would anyone want to get to know her?’
Ophelia: “As Rebecca very sensibly said, starting with “Don’t take this the wrong way” is an obvious signal that something obnoxious is about to follow. I sure as hell don’t take it as a solid gold guarantee of good intentions.”
Which is presumably why RW herself, in her “excellent talk”, prefaced her quote of Stef with the words, “not to embarrass this person, but”. Motes and beams all around, I think. Do we really have to be so eager to judge?
That’s from Gender Traitor/bueharmony over at ERV. I just had to post it. It’s almost beautiful in a way…
Peter – That’s a fair point. Saying that should have been a signal.
That’s always been one of the items I’ve disagreed with Rebecca about, but at the same time I don’t think it’s nearly so awful as the “it was so awful!” people do. I think it wasn’t great.
*sigh*
Oh, it is. Shut up, gnus!
He says full holiness and righteous wrath against the unwashed hoards assailing the sanctity of this holy temple with their perverse dogma. As the third moon appeared from the behind its sister’s Mischief and Strife, a terrible omen of foreboding, the champion drew the blade he had bathed in the White Waters and stepped forward.
Sorry, I’m dm’ing a game this weekend and wanted to practice. No idea where to go from there. Any advice? You seem to be full of it.
Speaking of blue harmony – for the record – at Abbie’s –
Total falsehood. I didn’t write to Dawkins.
I must go now, before I melt into a puddle of wickedness like the wicked witch of the west, or north or whatever it was.
Everyone take care of your thin delicate skins.
Ophelia: “That’s a fair point. Saying that should have been a signal.”
I think that, for this discussion, it should be more than that: it should be an occasion to say that, yes, sometimes people are sincere in the disclaimers they use to preface something. I don’t think for a moment that Rebecca meant to embarrass Stef (although she felt embarrassed). What I do think is that it should give her (and others who have defended her judegement of EG) pause—e.g. to reconsider the idea that EG was objectifying her (although she feld objectified). She (and we) should be able to give somebody the benefit of the doubt, even (or perhaps especially) when that is hard.
“That’s always been one of the items I’ve disagreed with Rebecca about, but at the same time I don’t think it’s nearly so awful as the “it was so awful!” people do.”
I fail to see how the second part of that sentence is relevant. Why can we not just say, ‘Yeah, okay, that was bad form’, without feeling the need to point at somebody else and say, ‘But look, they are even worse’?
What judgments? That he was probably asking for sex?
I don’t think that’s what Ms Benson said. My reading was something like ‘i think it’s bad but not nearly cry bloody murder bad.’ I do think she has said in others comments it pales in comparison to the harassment (rape threats for starters) Ms Watson has received from the same people who think it was ‘cry bloody murder bad.’ This has led to a certain level of indifference to what they have to say given just how out of whack their sense of proportion is.
By ignoring her words and the fact the she was a woman in a hotel elevator at 4 AM.
@Matt Penfold,
Indeed I did have a point actually what I had was a question: Here is what Ophelia had to say: “Ophelia Benson
August 6, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Oh, I suppose. [grumble grumble grumble]
It’s just that these aren’t Tea Party types. There’s such a weird fascination in their…journey off the rails.”
So I repeat, how is the fact that Miranda, among others, having a different opinion going off the rails? If their are rails then it seems that we are disallowing, in a skeptical community, certain types of discussion, disagreement etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik
There’s a lot to this.
Complex question. It’s not about their opinions. It’s about their behaviour.
Stop making this dumb claim.
Salty,
I am not the one who made that claim. If you will look at the quote by Ophelia, she was the one who commented on watching Miranda derail as it were. I am asking for the reasoning behind this statement.
Would you please explain where and who feels Ms Hale has gone off the deep end because she disagrees with us. Personally (as someone who neither knows nor follows her) for me it has to do with how indifferent she is to the harassment of others but will cry foul at the smallest offense directed at her. And I wouldn’t even really call that going off the deep end. Just a glaring blind spot.
You are reading way to much into that expression.
Ophelia seems to think Miranda is embarking on a “journey off the rails.” From all that I have read concerning this, it seems largely based on a disagreement about how to interpret, Elevatorgate and subsequent debates following RW’s initial video. I am not, I don’t think reading anything more into the phrase, or this permutation of, “off the rails” than is warranted. It implies running afoul an established position, or opinion etc and that doing so is the wrong thing to do.
Now it could be that there is something more to Ophelia’s stance beyond a simple difference of opinion. Hence my questions. And I think clarification is somewhat important because people do seem to be talking past one another an awful lot on these threads.
Your comment acknowledged the facts. Argue with the derailment (I think there’s none in Abbie’s case, as she’s always been on that track), but the case for derailment was never about having a different opinion. If you suggest that it is, you are being disingenuous.
***
Really, Steve, I want to hear a defense of this comment. “Damn nooses. We should not be in this situation.”
Salty, It seems like it is over a disagreement to me that Miranda and others are described as apparently going off or have always been off the rails. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. So what is the derailment about? I am asking because there are several points of entry into Elevatorgate and its attending controversies.
Hey Peter Beattie,
Do you still think Mel Gibson’s movie was probably not antisemitic? Have you read anything further on the subject, or do you not give a shit?
That’s what we’re asking, and nothing plucked from context.
I have to wonder, Max. Can you think of anything? If so, what?
Salty,
“That’s what we’re asking, and nothing plucked from context.” I’m asking why you think they are off the rails. What rails should they be on?
The rails of considering it unacceptable to employ hateful, misogynistic language against someone over “a disagreement about how to interpret, Elevatorgate and subsequent debates” maybe?
Salty,
Pardon me for not wanting to be talking past anyone. Having read several of these threads its seems easy enough to do. There is the Dawkins thing, there is the basic RW elevator experience, there is the critique of RW’s treatment of Steph. There was the Jen/Watson castigation of Dawkins. I think that covers the biggies. Not everyone is in lock step on all of these points, I thought that since Ophelia thought Miranda was off the rails (an opinion you share it seems) you guys might have specific set of rails worth discussing. What I don’t want to do is assume that I know what your objections are. Hence all my asking for clarification. Is engaging in a civil discussion is beyond you?
Let me get this straight. Blueharmony/GenderTraitor can’t bring herself to even type out gendered epithets, but is a regular at ERV. Has she been taking Abbie to task for “twatson”? If not, this:
is downright hypocritical, and demonstrates the same selectively thin-skin as MC Hale.
– repeating and encouraging misogynistic and sexist epithets
– attacking/mocking women who speak up about sexism
– presenting yourself as different from and better than other women
– belittling and mocking antisexist efforts
– making your blog a welcoming site for misogynists
I and others have given links to all of these. Do your research.
Substance. Now.
Max #164 wrote:
“Off the rails” is an idiom, a metaphor. Think “train wreck”. There are no rails or trains involved. As for what the specific problems are, try reading some more of the Notes & Comment blog posts over the last few weeks. If that’s not enough, there’s a contact form on the site where you can directly ask Ophelia what she meant. As of now, not knowing what you have and have not read, your comments smack of deliberate obtuseness. Not that you necessarily are, but I suggest stepping back and gathering more information if you’re really in the dark.
You know, I’ve been following all this for some time, and I think everyone is missing the point. How is it that the folks on the right–you know, the misogynistic, narrow minded, religiously minded people–can get behind people like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, and we can’t even seem to treat women with basic respect? Palin is an idiot, Bachmann is crazy, but no one on their side who disagrees with them calls them twats or cunts. They call them stupid or crazy, which are gender neutral terms. Now why is that? Why can they do what we can’t? More to the point, why can they do what we can’t when we pride ourselves on doing just that?
Professionalism. Maturity. Discipline. Keeping your eyes on the prize. If you shoot at everything, you will hit nothing.
Feminism may take care of itself if people can just grow up. What I see are a bunch of people who claim to be on the same side who can’t be bothered to act like adults to further their cause. At TAM 7, I bought the Skepchicks calendar, mostly because I felt guilty for looking at it because I was curious. It’s still in my TAM 7 folder. I’ve never looked at it since, but I couldn’t help thinking then that maybe it shouldn’t exist. Rumor has it that at the Skepchicks party, the top floor of the house, where the bedrooms were, was reserved for hanky panky. It’s sort of like Kelly O’Connor of the Rational Response Squad. If you really want to get your point across, maybe stripper is not the best career choice. I met her and I liked her, but with all due respect… It’s not about sex, it’s about business before pleasure. Stay focused.
I’ve spent a lot of time in the company of guys who are misogynistic, and it isn’t that they’re men, and men are awful. It’s that they’re boys, and boys are stupid. And so are girls. Let’s try being men and women.
This isn’t like herding cats, it’s like herding skunks who insist on spraying each other and giggling about it. If we really want to achieve something, maybe we should concentrate on what we want to achieve and act like adults. Because the other side is; they’re quite serious about it. I was with a conservative friend this morning, who was talking to someone in the party, and he wasn’t fucking around. But everyone here is.
Grow up. Eyes on the prize.
I don’t understand this:
But nobody is being invited simply because of genitalia. Then why make that comment at all? I mean, the most direct meaning in the comment would be: “those women were invited simply because of their genitalia and I wouldn’t want that for me”, but she’s already said it’s not that, so what is it?
Don’t let the doubters get you down, Ophelia. Have a great time at the conference and remind the folks at CFI that feminist issues ARE Humanist/Atheist/Agnostic issues, and vice-versa.
All the best,
JPF
I don’t get your point, Mark. It’s confusingly vague. The skepchick party has what to do with anything? Growing up is suborning other concerns to party loyalty? I see that as a step back, not forward. Also, people actually talking party politics with insiders tend to be focussed on winning particular goals: most of life is not like that.
So we have a conference about women in secularism.
Let’s talk about it!
Do we have to do it privately? OK.
I should add that I don’t have a clue why Miranda said that. I assumed it referred just to her, but I don’t really understand her point. In general, I disagree with her on this matter. I think a women-only conference is a fine and necessary idea, and who better to invite to discuss such matters than Ophelia Benson?
As to why Miranda said that – I have a suggestion. She has a blog, linked to above. Why not go there and ask her? There seems no point in trying to mind-read from a distance. Isn’t that what rational people are supposed to do – to engage in discourse rather than hurl abuse?
Well, exactly.
Sorry to bother you, folks. Just wanted to respond to a couple of things. I hope that I don’t insult anyone by doing so.
I can’t remember who all signed the letter to Dawkins. If I was mistaken that Ophelia was one of those people, then I sincerely apologize. The point was that your side has been using them too. And I didn’t say you were *using* them all over this thread, I said they were *all over this* thread. Again, I don’t even say them. I use words like “guys” on occasion, but unintentionally. I try to be respectful with language. If there’s any evidence that I’m not, please show me, and I will be more careful. I’ve also made my point of view on this known on the ERV’s thread. Further, I don’t attack people for their opinions or call them stupid. When people do that to me it’s far more hurtful than gendered epithets. People on your side of the argument have done that constantly, not matter how nice I’ve tried to be. No one does that to me on ERV’s forum. If I chatter there, it’s because people listen.
Also, didn’t someone do a whole speech called “Don’t be a Richard?” I can think of at least two people. I wasn’t offended by that. Should I have been?
@Jadehawk: First, your definition of “logical” is the same as mine, see #3 above. But if you want to talk about formal logic, argument from authority is not logical. That means that your argument from authority is no better than my argument from authority. Hence it’s illogical.
Rebecca was permanently banned from the JREF forums for sock-puppetry, impersonating others, and deleting people’s accounts (when she accidentally got administrator privileges). I thought this was common knowledge. I was around when it happened, and Darat’s post explaining the situation can be found online. This was quite a few years ago, and she says it was a joke. Fine. People make mistakes. The reason I made a general statement was because I didn’t want to bring up Rebecca’s name. But since you asked…
Finally, what EG did wasn’t harassment, sexual or otherwise, it was dumb. Rebecca had every right to say what she wanted about it, just as people had a right to offer different interpretations. Rape and death threats are a different issue. They’re horrid and no one, anywhere, is saying that they’re OK, at least I hope not. Sexism in the atheist community exists, but I don’t think we’re addressing it.
Some women are saying that it’s the internet nastiness (not language), and conduct that attacks people, not arguments, that keeps them from conferences. I’m one of them. If we want to offer an alternative to religion and irrational foolishness, we have to avoid it ourselves.
Hate me for my offensive opinions if you like, but I feel very strongly about this.
Also, please stop attributing the conduct of other people to me. I am not responsible for what other people do. I am my own person, with my own opinions. Yes, I prefer to hang around people who are not cruel to me. If that means I have a thin skin, then so be it. But just like you, I’m a real person. And I take internet comments to heart.
Gender Traitor/Bluharmony wrote:
Yet you appear to approve of them being cruel (far more so, in my opinion at least, than anyone here has been to you) to other people, including – by virtue of the misogynist terms they revel in using – every woman on the planet. And you’re expecting us to respect you for that?
Has any person here made comment about your physical attractiveness, the odour of your genitals, or suggested that your education in a particular discipline renders your opinion invalid as those on your side have done to Rebecca Watson?
@Bluharmony
So, in your quest to avoid people who you feel are cruel to you, you’re willing to pal around with those who are being quite cruel to others? Just so long as you’re not the target, right?
That’s the thing. We feel you are being cruel to us.
@Max, in case you’ve been asleep and are genuinely asking: by a very long way the biggest issue is the disproportionate response to RW’s comment on EG.
My paraphrase:
RW: “If you want more women around, it’s probably a good idea not to do stuff like this EG example. Because that creeps out quite a lot of women.”
Response: STFU YOU DISGUSTING STINKY WOMAN-GENITALS CASTRATING FEMINAZI HOW DARE YOU TELL ME WHAT TO DO THE HUMAN RACE WILL DIE OUT IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOU ARRGH TWAT CUNT SNATCH WARRGARBLE HOW DARE YOU CALL ME MISOGYNIST YOU SMELLY UGLY FAT PUSSY BITCH?
That issue. Right there.
Did you ask her?
I don’t think this is the idea at all.
Then just say Way to Go, and STFU.
Why don’t you? In fact, why don’t you go there and fucking stay there?
Ah, well, I can see how that justifies what you feel is reciprocal cruelty then. An eye for an eye and all that. Good to know where we stand.
I don’t think anyone here respects you.
It’s still amazing to read sentences like:
Zara #59, “There are true battles out there that need the energy of good people.”
Max # 164, “It seems that we are disallowing, in a skeptical community, certain types of discussion.”
And not one word or concern about the tsunami of misogynistic sewage and what that says for prevailing mindsets — those in this community in particular. Do you people live in a parallel universe? Or just in your own insulated bubble?
And you have insufficient empathy to care about their profound disrespect and cruelty toward others. As long as you aren’t the target anything goes?
Gender Traitor/Bluharmony wrote:
You’re deluded if you think the men using those terms on Abbie’s site aren’t using them with the intent of demeaning women.
No, because I don’t care that much. I’m not writing posts telling others to fuck off. I’m not speculating about what someone else thinks when it would only take an e-mail or a post on
Well, whatever it is, if it helps to promote the presence and role of women in skepticism and atheism, it’s a thoroughly good idea.
Sure. It’s no skin off my nose, as they say. Perhaps, though, it might be constructive for you to ask yourself why you are happy helping to promote an image of New Atheists as intolerant of dissent. As others have posted, such an image can be very off-putting to others who want to become part of New Atheism.
This kind of ranting helped to put off many gay people from coming out and working towards equality in the 90s. If you want a positive political movement that is welcoming to new members, then it’s a bad idea to establish mutually hostile cliques.
I’m just sayin’
Anyway, I’ve done my best. Good luck to Ophelia for the conference…
Salty,
– repeating and encouraging misogynistic and sexist epithets
Sorry, but the epithets seem to have been coming fast an furious on any of these threads no matter what side of the debate one finds oneself. This blog is something of an exception, and certainly to be commended for that. I don’t know your opinion on this, but there is a double standard at work fairly often that, if one is going to comment on misogynistic and sexist epithets then I suspect there should have been broader condemnation of the “Dear Dick” campaign. Dick in general seems fairly common as an epithet.
There is also a point of free speech to consider. For myself I would rather allow a comment than censor content because it it better to have such thoughts and such sentiments in the open where they might be exposed for what they are.
– attacking/mocking women who speak up about sexism
Leaving the insanity of YouTube on the one side (and the personal threats that Watson has received-all of which has been universally rejected and condemned on the sensible pages) , I have not seen people attacking or mocking people because they are speaking up about sexism. I have seen a lot of mocking on both sides though, and I have seen a lot of reasonable positions on both sides. But the critiques that I have read of Jen, and RW, and Ophelia aren’t because they are speaking up about sexism but because not everyone agrees, and not everyone sees the arguments on offer as equal in merit. And that happens on both sides. PZ let epithets, and insults fly on a recent ERV thread.
– presenting yourself as different from and better than other women
I think this is just silly. That happens on both sides of the argument too.
– belittling and mocking antisexist efforts
Like Jen McCreight suggesting that Dawkins was offering money for childcare in lieu of an apology to RW despite the fact that the proposal was apparently in the works for some time. It was generous of her to not care that much and shake Dawkins’ hand for doing it.
– making your blog a welcoming site for misogynists
Misogynists means woman hating. And having waded through pages of ERV, some of Miranda’s comments I am not seeing that at all. Certainly there is a lot of insult and anger, among the websites of the chief critics of RW I think almost all the posters would be considered some kind of feminist, even though they disagree with you and sometimes use harsh language. But none of the complaints I’ve read have been based on the fact that RW is a woman, and about her conduct-not as a woman, but as a public face of skepticism. Strangely the most sexist stuff I’ve seen has been from the RW side. To paraphrase one of the popular memes: Dawkins doesn’t get it because he is a man, he is white, he is rich etc.. I suspect you would consider that perfectly absurd if that statement flipped the sex of the subject, and began with the word Watson.
Gender Traitor/Blue Harmony. Thank you for returning. I would really like to see some examples of this verbal cruelty and ugliness you speak of. More than anything, in the responses to your posts here on this comment thread (I made one, by the way, and tried very hard to be substantive), I see people challenging your arguments, rather than attacking you personally. I see some exasperation that you present yourself as someone who acknowledges how hurtful words and mob mentality can be, and yet aligns herself with some fairly egregious offenders in this regard because, apparently, they have been nice to *you*.
The worst thing I can glean from this comment thread is early on when you mentioned belonging to a different school of thought vis a vis feminism, and SC countered with ‘Clown School’. I can see how that might be as cruel and/or ugly, but moreso than smelly snatch/twat/bitch/cunt/whore et al? Really? Because that group is ‘treat[ing you] with respect’?
There’s very little high ground to occupy here. I’d love to get past it, too, but if that’s your basis for choosing a side, well, I honestly don’t know how to move toward any sort of resolution.
Blueharmony wrote:
I’ve written two comments concerning you, one directly addressed to you and one about you. I haven’t seen you reply directly to either, so I can only assume you’ve ignored them. Can you point to any instance in which I’ve insulted you?
Gender Traitor/Bluharmony wrote:
You want to take a stab at qualifying the difference between having had these particular comments directed toward you as opposed to telling you you’re a uppity cunt with a smelly snatch? Because there is one, and it’s one of the most significant aspects of this dispute.
GT/BH, Your opinions are being challenged. Bluntly. Welcome to the internet. I, as well as Jadehawk and a few other voices here are making efforts to understand your position–sometimes a challenge and a call for clarification are rolled into one, hence the abundance of question marks in more than a few substantive responses addressed to you. And conditional statements like ‘you are deluded IF’. So, your statement that “every response to everything I’ve said has been nothing more than a personal insult. ” is inaccurate. Substantive responses have been given; questions have been posed. Will you continue to dwell on tone, or can we discuss content?
I’ll let Max’s post @ #191 stand for the snorf it is.
I have to wonder if these people truly believe this blather, and/or if they realize that every point they’ve made has been addressed dozens of times.
@Jen: Oh, and look at Salty’s lovely comment: “I don’t think anyone here respects you.” Tell me, would you rather have someone tell you that or call you a name that’s lost most of its offensive overtones? I don’t think it gets anymore cruel than that. That’s downright disgusting.
Also, I love the “You shouldn’t hang out with that makes you awful too” but “Get away from us” combo. That works well. When all I asked is if we can get past this…
I said recently that Paul W. is one of my favorite people on the internet. Jadehawk, too. Wowbagger’s another.
There are great people in the world. And there are assclams.
(Wowbagger, have you done Love Letters to Stalin?)
Moe,
Asking for clarification seems to be a cause for suspicion around here. But I legitimately wanted to know where the points of contention were on this thread before wading in, because there several such points.
I’m quite happy with train wreck to describe the whole thing, but not to identify one side of the discussion.
Well Salty is….salty. If you don’t want to engage with her, then don’t. Salty’s also wrong, because I do respect you. That said, I have a difficult time respecting your continued attempts to minimize the power of gender-specific slurs. I’m hoping vainly that by ‘A name that’s lost most of its offensive overtones’, you mean something like “clotpole”…but I doubt it. And that’s the issue. You are distancing yourself from those terms by saying ‘*I* don’t use them’ and stating that they’re really not all that offensive, when thousands of people are saying they aren’t. I certainly won’t go so far as to call you deluded, but to complain to the extent you have about how the cruel words of others have hurt you, while simultaneously failing to acknowledge that *the particular, gender-specific insults under discussion* are loaded, powerful words that are frequently used in ugly misogynistic ways is certainly…a sheltered view.
@Gender Traitor/Bluharmony
Being a tone troll is offensive, please stop.
205: “….when thousands of people are saying they ARE”. Damn it.
Rebecca’s experience, as related, is distinctly different from any of this, because it happened in real life. To her. You said earlier that you empathized with her reaction to that experience, and yet here you say “even I’m not fragile enough to be offended by an awkward coffee invite/proposition.”. I’m looking hard for the empathy in that statement, but I’m not seeing it.
Elsewhere: continue to condemn their use
Here: stop minimizing their impact
Thanks, and good night.
GT/BH #207 wrote:
And you’re complaining about people being cruel? That last sentence is simply a calculated insult.
Get lost, shithead. Do what you’re going to do, as long as you don’t hurt other people. If you’re not going to take desperate action then shut the hell up and knock off the hyperbole, internet thespian.
Weren’t you emotionally demolished by my last comment? No? Get lost.
Max wrote:
Actually it was the obtuseness about the metaphor. I tend to assume people get metaphors, so when I see someone trying to break one down into its parts it looks like trolling.
@Gender Traitor/Bluharmony
I don’t know why I am bothering, you are either a troll or a moron but I will explain a few things anyway.
Yes this is the internet, and random folks (like me) will sometimes act poorly, however if I were to go an start calling you a “stupid cunt bitch with a smelly snatch” Ophelia would ban me here same if I started calling people “nigger or kike or greedy jew” . To not ban me for doing so would put some of the blame on her.
Since you can obviously type cogent responses you can not possibly be as stupid as you are pretending add to that the fact you came here with the name “gender traitor” makes you a troll.
Jen,
At ERV, the overwhelming consensus seems to be that the Watson video was fine. I certainly find myself in agreement with this. If I have a point of disagreement with the video it is that one of the labels is feminism, because there didn’t seem to be much content to which that heading would be applicable. It seems like it was the stuff that came after, and her lumping of a student who had no platform to defend herself with people who wanted to, or at least enjoyed threatening to rape Rebecca. Some people have wondered if her statement applicable only for herself, or if she was issuing a blanket statement speaking for all women and to all men. It certainly sounded like she was speaking to all men, and for all women to me, but whatever. I felt uneasy about my interpretation, but at that point I filed it away under who cares. It is what came after where preponderance of the complaints and criticism seem focused.
I also agree with Gendertraitor that the use of all the sexual epithets is more than mildly immature, indeed I find all the name calling pretty unproductive, and certainly has no place on an internet discussion because it always wreaks of cowardice, and comes across like a put on. But I don’t think people have the right to complain about it if they condone, when it done on their side, and isn’t smacked down often. The Pharyngulites and PZ seem as facile with the barbs as anyone at ERV, And the Dear Dick letter campaign to Dawkins seems to stand in sharp contrast with the concern over sexual epithets.
No trolling Moe.
Seriously.
It’s how you do which I gather is frequent.
Oh it is all about poor little bluharmony. Its hurt feelins. Yet it still takes potshots at Watson’s ‘fragility’. Bullies and their hangers on always turn out to be the biggest cowards and whiners.
Why the fuck should anyone consider your delicate and private issues when you dont for a moment to extend the basic courtesy to others?
Everyone who is wallowing in the sewer at ERV is irredeemably tainted, for me anyway. I do understand that most of you are farking saddos with lots of issues – hence the incessant whining and attention whoring. Just fuck off.
Comma
You welcome, now go away troll.
Max watch the video from CFI she does not lump Stef in with the others there is a clear separation and she clearly states shes not lumping her with them.
I didn’t say I don’t like you for hanging out at ERV. I asked whether you’ve been taking those using gendered epithets to task for their cruelty as much as you’ve been doing so here. It looks hypocritical to do one and not the other.
Except Rebecca Watson didn’t insult you. You flung an insult at her out of nowhere. Tu quoque is a logical fallacy, and in this case you’re using it to excuse your behavior while taking other people to task for the same. I for one see “No one here respects you” as far less insulting than “And even I’m not fragile enough to be offended by an awkward coffee invite/proposition.”
You really think that people stooping to calling others cunts and twats are going to stop when you’re defending the use of those terms as without impact? BTW, the cruelty stopping is part and parcel of the gendered epithets stopping.
You’re crazy.
Your not a woman your an internet troll, therefore you are an it.
Mirax, this is a wonderful gem of enlightenment values. “Everyone who is wallowing in the sewer at ERV is irredeemably tainted, for me anyway. I do understand that most of you are farking saddos with lots of issues – hence the incessant whining and attention whoring. Just fuck off.”
Welcome to the discourse. In this new episode we replace thought, and rationality with dogma, and those who disagree are “irredeemably tainted” and are “farking saddos with lots of issues.”
The whole “shes bad because of what she did to poor Stef” thing is a little disingenuous now that the video of it is out. I mean before it came out you could pretend, she had done something to deserve all the venom thrown at her. Now though seriously the claims she lumped her in with people calling for her rape are outright lies.
It’s “you’re,” David. Please learn to speak English and yes, I happen to be a woman, as most people here know. I’ve also attended conferences, presented at SkepTrack/Dragon*Con, and been interviewed on a few podcasts.
If it’s OK to say horrible things about me, which you’ve done long before I said even anything remotely bad about anyone, but I’m a monster if I say Rebecca is fragile. Well, to be honest, I don’t think she’s fragile at all. I think she’s remarkably tough.
Max, if you stuff your ‘discourse ‘ which is just a whole lot of excuse making up your pompous fundament. I have seen the creeps that have crawled out since elevatorgate and I want no part of anything to do with any of you fuckers. I am mighty glad that I live a couple of oceans away from most of you. If you represent the skeptical or atheist movement in any fashion, I want no part of it. You sicken me.
You, Your, You’re Yoo iz, yooz a troll, and now a grammar Nazi troll too, the worst kind, and still and “it”.
Steve Zara—how about you shut your condescending fucking mouth? Hmm?
If she’d slapped McGraw accross the face the venom wouln’t have been deserved. It was a pretext.
That is entirely me. Not the much kinder and more patient posters on this blog. Yeah, you can blow that up whichever way you want, put it on a flag for all I care : ERV FANS : FARKING SADDOS WITH LOTS OF ISSUES.
Max, the use of the word ‘dick’ has been condemned here, repeatedly, as were the connotations of ‘Dear Dick’. I certainly haven’t read anywhere close to the majority of the comments stemming from this F5 Category shitstorm, and I don’t assume anyone else has, either–I can’t be arsed to dig up links right now, but it truly has been discussed. If you doubt it, I can try to provide the evidence tomorrow.
I honestly don’t give a shit what the topic of Rebecca’s talk was. I’ve never been a Skepchick fan or found her particularly interesting. I haven’t seen the video, although I did read the transcript of the part that referenced Steph McGraw. Generally speaking, I agree with ERV’s basic point that it was bad form to call someone out from the pulpit like that, but the vehemence that has resulted has just taken on a life of its own.
As to the gender-specific insults, the thing that you and, apparently GT/BH have not acknowledged is that they are not seen by a great many (dare I say a majority? If not then close to it, across all demographics) as tantamount to just any old insults. You bring a little tu quoque to your argument by claiming that PZ & followers are equally insulting, but NOT WITH THOSE WORDS! Go try to post a comment using the word ‘cunt’ as an insult on Pharyngula and see what happens. ERV, too, is getting in on the tu quoque action by calling up that picture of Watson branding whoeverthefuck with ‘Fuck you, you pussy’. I don’t give Rebecca any more leeway for using gender-specific slurs than I would a random person on a blog. The fact that RW has used them doesn’t invalidate my argument in the least.
Do you really not see the difference between ‘clueless gobshite’ and ‘smelly cunt’? I cannot believe that this is such a hard point to get across. It’s not about how ‘naughty’ or ‘immature’ the words are, its in how they have been used to denigrate 50% of the human population by turning parts a woman’s anatomy into slurs meaning ‘dirty’, ‘weak’, ‘stupid’, and so forth. There’s a valid reason people keep equating these words with racial slurs. It’s way beyond ‘tone’. If those words don’t bother you beyond generic vulgarity, well, please consider that a non-zero number of people feel the same way about ‘faggot’ or ‘jigaboo’. Is that ok with you?
“@David: Some of the worst things are said nicely. That said, “standard parrotting of misogynistic thought” and “ignorance of feminism 101″ isn’t nice. Nor is it true.”
I know, I know, I should not feed the troll, but its hot and I can’t sleep.
She did not lump her in with wannabe rapists, she did not misquote stef or take her out of context. She posted exactly what Stef (a fully grown woman) posted publicly and responded to it in a fair and honest way. (unlike Stefs original post).
There was no “power imbalance” if anything audience members have more power over speakers than the reverse.
Do you see the difference between those epithets and telling me no one has any respect for me, that I’m a moron, that I’m not a woman, that I’m a saddo, that I’m cruel, and, basically, you just need to scroll upward for most of the comments thrown at me. Not only am I treated as if I weren’t human, I’m actually called an “it.” The fact that I’m so upset that my hands are shaking, and I’m in tears should make all of you very happy.
I’m pretty sure I’m not the sadistic one, though.
And I’m sorry, but I treat people on the internet just as if I were talking to them in real life. Which generally means no insults at all. But even I have my breaking point.
Your a troll, if we really hurt your feeling you would not be here, you came here with the only goal being to stir things up. Your not even a particularly clever or good troll either. Go read fark and get some practice some on there have it down to an art form takes hundreds of posts before people realize they are a troll, you came here with the label on your forehead.
Stop being so uppity, Josh!
(You’re another of my favorite internet people, btw :).)
“@David: That is in no way a response to what I actually said.”
Fine, she WAS parroting misogynistic thought and she was obviously ignorant of feminism 101, kinda like you.
Going to bed, have fun trolling.
GT, honey, get off the internet and try to get a little perspective. Really, it’s just a blog, late at night (in the US, at least), and alas, most people do not follow your guidelines for internet decorum. If it’s really upsetting you to that extent, please go do something that will make you happier. Good night, really and truly this time.
The fact that I’m so upset that my hands are shaking, and I’m in tears should make all of you very happy.
aww poor diddums. It is always all about you, you and you.
Gosh, Gender Traitor seemed so distraught by my comments.
Jen,
“Do you really not see the difference between ‘clueless gobshite’ and ‘smelly cunt’? I cannot believe that this is such a hard point to get across.” You may be pushing at an open door here. However neither offering on the buffet of insults does much to convey a reasonable argument. I am, likely, some kind of farking saddo, who makes Mirax here sick because I have read a lot of ERV. But I would suggest that while one “smelly cunt” may be more hurtful to some, clueless goshite (which would be some of the milder Pharygulisms on offer) is intended to be just as hurtful because that is the nature of insults and it is in the nature of internet insults to be grasp after the most hurtful weapons first.
“It’s not about how ‘naughty’ or ‘immature’ the words are, its in how they have been used to denigrate 50% of the human population by turning parts a woman’s anatomy into slurs meaning ‘dirty’, ‘weak’, ‘stupid’, and so forth.” I’m not okay with the use of these words as serious insults. I am not sure they are aimed at 50% of the human population. What they are aimed at, and this is no better, is their specific target. Cunt seems to have a greater cultural relevance in the US than in the UK (or so I hear) so it is the nuclear bomb that asshats like to go for provoking paroxysms and hurt feelings of all stripes in their targets. However I can see how people not targeted by such insults would be bothered by their use.
“There’s a valid reason people keep equating these words with racial slurs. It’s way beyond ‘tone’. If those words don’t bother you beyond generic vulgarity, well, please consider that a non-zero number of people feel the same way about ‘faggot’ or ‘jigaboo’. Is that ok with you?”
If these words are hurled as real insults, and not in some jokey, satirical, parody related way then I think we are agreed that they are absolutely the wrong way to go. Having conceded all that I don’t think it is worse than the kinds of insults being hurled about by PZ and the posters on his blog, or even some of the stuff I’m getting from Mirax right now. It is all mean spirited, and set against the possibility of real discussion. Isn’t it?
I did look through it, and I do think “clown school” is better than “twatson”. Just like I think “Randroid” is better than “kike”. I do tend to get frustrated by Salty’s eagerness to insult, though. I think Salty could have much more productively argued against your mischaracterization of Watson as applying the label of misogynist to anyone who disagrees with her, or your assertion that Watson had it coming because she’s controversial. I don’t think any woman has “cunt,” or the disgustingly sexist backlash I’ve seen, coming to her because she’s disagreeable. As I see it you’re making a bunch of false equivalencies and I grow weary of it. Good night.
But there’s no problem with sexism. At all.
Deal.
@wildlifer, no, sorry, try again. That’s not remotely what was said, although you have managed to collect a very nice set of strawpeople.
Wrong.
I don’t think it is worse than the kinds of insults being hurled about by PZ and the posters on his blog, or even some of the stuff I’m getting from Mirax right now
Ha ha. so predictable. Thousands of word of equivocating and drawing false equivalences, then a whine. Poor me. Some woman is being rude to me on the net. Me who is so rational and above it all. Me who is the only one who can tell a real insult apart from rhetorical flourishes and jokes. Me who is arguing in good faith.
Yeah right.
Max wrote:
Right! Like when males call each other girls, they’re not demeaning females, they’re actually just demeaning the specific male in question to the level of females. That’s an important distinction.
Hang on a second. Maybe, just maybe, such insults serve both to demean a specific target and to demean others implicitly. Hm. I will have to do more research on the topic. Maybe with my particle collider. I’ve been waiting for a reason to break it out.
Salty wrote:
Mostly I do. Salty also wrote:
What’s wrong? The mischaracterization I identified? Or am I wrong to identify it as such? I guess what frustrates me is the terseness, since I often don’t know what you’re referring to. Not that you are obliged to change.
False equivalency. They’re not complaining about insults, they’re complaining about sexist insults. This is not difficult to understand, and I would be insulting you if I thought you were dumb enough to not-get it. I think you get it perfectly well, but you’re committed to a position and thus arguing disingenuously.
Jason, I have said that I think sexist insults are bad. As I said you are pushing at an open door on this with me. For some reason that keeps getting missed.
I have fixed the chronology of wildlifer’s comment which was otherwise good
You’ve skipped eons of inter-tubes time.
It was more like, Watson:
“And as an example of the pervasive sexism in the skeptic movement, a guy had the nerve to get on an elevator with me and ask me to join him for coffee in his room.”
Rational people:
“Well, just asking someone for coffee isn’t an example of sexism.”
Watson @ CFI:
“And this youngling had the audacity to disagree with me on the internet! She’s sitting right there!”
Watson sycophants:
“Yes it was, coffee means sex! You fucking stupid MRAs”
Rational people:
“Well, even if it there was an interest in sex, that’s not defacto sexism.”
Watson sycophants:
“She was almost raped you fucking gender traitor. Shroedinger’s Rapist proves it!”
Dawkins:
“The results of the encounter are Zero Bad.”
Watson & sycophants:
“Dear Dick, fuck off you privileged old white dude!”
Rational People:
“Twatson’s a privilege-abusing hypocrite, let’s push her buttons!!”
Your claim, you idiot. It’s untrue.
You’re so dimwitted that I won’t bother with you further.
Sad little troll.
@Max #267
The comment you’re quoting was directed at GT/BH. #266 was definitely directed at one of your comments, however. Also, there are mechanisms to enclose quotations in indentations to clearly separate them from the rest of your post. Like this:
See how it’s indented and placed in a differently colored box? It’s much more readable that way. With the “visual” editor style you highlight the text and click the quotation mark button. If you go over to HTML you can add <blockquote> tags, which is a less finicky method.
I am curious though do you think “farking saddo with issues” is about equivalent to Twatson? It certainly seems like a pretty gross generalizations about an entire readership, and given that sexuality is often tied a bit to sadism and thus personal issues it certainly seems to go after not just me who received the insult but sadists everywhere. I mean maybe are also impugning the character of 1/10 of 1% of the human population. How utterly insensitive.
Sad little troll.
Eh, maybe not.
Good night.
Salty wrote:
My claim is that Watson was not labeling anyone who disagreed with her as misogynists.
If you disagree with that, then by all means provide evidence.
This is a nice little merry-go-round, isn’t it. None so deaf as those who have their fingers in their ears and are shouting LALALALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU CUNT! Let’s have a bit more repetition.
No, indeed. But asking a small woman for coffee, when you are alone, in a small enclosed space, at 4am, when you have heard her say that she wants to go to sleep, and you have heard her give a talk on how being propositioned is not what she wants? What is that?
Tell me, where exactly does this utter disrespect for someone’s feelings come from? If it’s not from socially privileging men’s rights to say whatever they damn well please to anyone regardless of their situation, then what is it?
A 4am invitation to someone’s hotel room means sex, regardless of whether it’s for coffee, tea, gin, or etchings. It is a social cliche. To anyone who is not autistic. (And autistic people are usually smart enough not to do this to a stranger.)
Ah, here we begin a very special detour into “missing the point by a couple of AU” territory. No-one said that.
Schrodinger’s rapist, for those who are not irredeemably stupid, points out the unbelievably obvious point that women are not psychic. Something that should be par for the course, at a skeptic conference, and yet somehow it isn’t. How puzzling! But there it is. So let us just for a moment stipulate that women are, in general, not psychic. How exactly would you suggest that a woman is supposed to know a total stranger’s intentions?
More like “Dear Dick, we are very very disappointed with how you condescended to RW. Since you specifically asked to be educated if there was something wrong, here is that education from a large number of rape survivors. Personally I am quite sickened by your disrespectful behaviour and won’t be buying any more of your books unless you apologise.”
No, ERV was the one insulting Stef McGraw by calling her a “youngling” instead of an adult woman. Watson chose to disagree publicly and politely with McGraw.
I’d especially like to point out the beautifully self-refuting nature of this statement here. The idea appears to be that “rational people” want to go round pushing other people’s buttons instead of arguing, and calling them names. Yes, surely that screams “rational”!
With this strange new definition of rational, how can you at the same time object to referring to Dawkins as “Dick”? It’s only rational (wildlifer definition) to call people names! Fuckwit! See – I can be rational (wildlifer definition), too.
@Cath,
No that pretty much sums up/paraphrases the events as they happened. It wasn’t the 0 to 100 mph scenario you suggested. Though, I would be willing to alter the chronology with evidence showing otherwise. I did leave out bits, like the how to get laid advice, or how in the first script EG just got on the elevator with RW, but as it was fleshed out later, she witnessed him leaving a group to”follow” her onto the elevator.
That group must be the skeptic group which lives under a rock, otherwise he would be identified by now.
Or they and he weren’t even a part of the skeptic meeting. Time will tell.
No. Skimming again, it appears your comment was about the quality, precision, and “productivity” of my insults, and my alleged “eagerness” to insult.
Bite me. :)
Cath,
I’ve had this very thing happen to me twice memorably by women, even though I made it fairly clear that I wasn’t interested in them. Both accosted me an enclosed space, and of those two one of them I had to pry off of me. There wasn’t, in my case much worry in the back of my mind that I would get raped. A friend of mine was taken home once by a women in a van. My friend was extraordinarily drunk and she propositioned him for sex even though he had made it clear that he had no interest in her what soever. Again no credible threat of rape there so I am not trying to say these experiences are equal to that of Watsons along that axis of experience. My point is this People regardless of their sex, sometimes make mistakes and try their luck anyway. And sometimes they really just want coffee. In the modern age in the US I don’t think men are given more license than women in this regard.
FFS.
Let me get this straight. The Rebecca-hating, Twatson/cunt/smellysnatch/drunk mob is now hanging out here trying to tell us that the only reason they did not distance themselves from, and speak out against, Abbie’s misogynistic hate juggernaut is because they feel kinda more loved there ? The reason you people let 4000 comments full of hate, misogyny and character assassination of one woman who explained rather politely that she perceives there to exist a problem with sexism, and lack of recognition thereof in the atheist and skeptic movement go by, and not only that but for the most part actively participated in it, is that the good and decent people here and elsewhere who disagree with you and call you out on your errors, lies, sockpuppetry and hypocrisy, are being meanies who make you delicate flowers feel all sad and unloved ? I find this attempt by the Watson-haters to somehow negotiate whose words are more hurting and why, one of the most pathetic displays I’ve seen in a long time.
Crawl back into your caves, morons, while the decent part of mankind moves on trying to make social movements more welcoming to women. I’m so sick of this whole mess.
Keep typing, Max.
I’m going to sleep.
And by try their luck I mean ask someone out who has sent as many polite signals as possible that they would prefer to not be asked out by said person. Not try their luck as in try their luck without permission, but ask anyway.
Rorshach,
I think you have just presented a minor fiction in your description of the critique of Watson, and the discussion I am have been having with some of the posters here. I have not been trying to negotiate whose words are more hateful. I think all the insults have been remarkably unhelpful in having a discussion about the the issues at hand.
Letting this stand.
You’re a tedious blip.
***
Sleep.
Jen Phillips @254:
How, pray tell, is this term: “honey”, not blatantly sexist as well as insultingly condescending at the same time?
I am asking this of Ophelia, by the way.
If you’re even considering engaging with him, Rorschach, don’t bother.
Max:
Yeah. Sometimes they just want shitty hotel coffee at four in the morning with someone they have not talked to all night despite ostensibly numerous opportunities who has just announced their intention to go to bed, and the best place to ask this is in a confined space with no viable method of escape or defense from an imminent attack…
Seriously, are you five or something? You seriously can’t connect the dots here? Really? Because it’s pretty damn simple and obvious here and made even more obvious by the overture of “Don’t take this the wrong way, but…”. He knew what he was doing, he knew how it could be taken…and he did it anyway. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE SHITTY HOTEL COFFEE, MORON: THIS IS TACTICS AND IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Then maybe they should respect that and, y’know, not ask them out, especially not at four AM, in the elevator, when they haven’t even talked to the person before and the person has expressed a desire to go to bed.
Jesus fuck, how many of my fellow men have to be this insanely stupid…
How so, Max ? Please elaborate.
@280 Cath
Flawed assumptions.
You have no evidence he heard her say she wanted to go to sleep. She said she hadn’t spoken with him and I assume if they had shared “moments” of eye contact in the group, she would have said so. So far, she’s never placed him in the group of people to which she made that statement.
He didn’t force her to do anything against her wishes. And even if he did hear her, how does offering a different choice – one she could accept or decline – constitute disrespect? In my lifetime I’ve been asked 10s of 1000s of times if I would rather do something other than what I stated I was going to do and never felt disrespected at all.
Here’s a thought: Don’t take this the wrong way (because I’ve heard and agree with what you’ve said) but, …..
I invited a regional director at a meeting to my room for more beer and more talk, admittedly it was only 3 a.m., no sex was involved.
Right, that’s why rape is mentioned more than coffee and sex together in the threads on Watson at PZs Playhouse.
She was psychic enough to claim he was sexualizing (instead of merely attracted to/interested in) her though, but she doesn’t know his intentions therefore – rape?
If he was going to rape her in an elevator, he wouldn’t be making time for chit-chat would he? He’s only got a minute or so. You don’t need to be psychic to figure that shit out.
My point exactly. Watson wasn’t raped. The issue had nada to do with rape survivorship.
It doesn’t matter if it was sugar-coated. She abused her privilege at the podium. That’s a problem with your dogma about Teh Bad Werds, a person can be just as abused with “nice” words.
We’ve been doing it to creationists for decades. After it becomes apparent the dogma is impervious to reason, they’re nothing but playthings with shiny buttons to push. Same thing is true in this particular case. Although I admit, I have been rather remiss in getting my licks in.
I don’t have a problem with the gendered insult at Dawkins, he a big boy and insults aren’t supposed to be warm and fuzzy – you shoot for the opponents weak points to insult them.
I take issue with the hypocrisy.
I’m still not getting the assertion that the sliver of a possibility that Elevator Guy wasn’t propositioning Watson (huh?) means, um… therefore it can’t be used to talk about sexism or objectification (double huh?). The notion is unworthy of the calories spent on it.
Anyway.
Max wrote:
I don’t think they’re equivalent, but it’s still quite dehumanizing. Gross generalizations, etc.. I have no principle against insult as such, but proportionality is still good. Youtube is way worse than ERV as a whole, though some people there deserve a good insulting.
Also, I read “saddo” as a form of “sad” synonymous with “pathetic” rather than “sadist,” and the Urban Dictionary agrees with the former. It’s not an identity insult.
Max’ response to my request to elaborate on his assertion:
*crickets*
I didn’t think so. Clownshoe.
The record will show Wildlifer’s # 297 is nothing but a litany of rhetorical strategies used by the Menz™ brigade for the last month to attack RW’s anecdote and the larger point it was illustrating. What a pathetic waste of 385 words, and how very inconsiderate of you to stink up the thread at at time when Ophelia isn’t around to monitor it. You’ve abused your privilege again.
God, I love this shit. This blog has hit Autism Level. Most of the content here is boring insults from your tiny readership, and you even ended this post with “fuck you,”
BUT FOR FOR THE LOVE OF FUCKING GOD IN HEAVEN DO NOT CONCATENATE ANYONE’S LAST NAME WITH THE WORD “TWAT” SWEET FUCKING JESUS THAT CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY WILL NOT STAND NO NO NO NO NO NO
I hope Elevatorgate goes to 2012. This shit gets better and better. Most of the discussions are boring, but the feigned indigity is golden.
Max,
If you could not be bothered to answer my question I would much have preferred it if you had either just said nothing, or admitted you could, or would, not answer it. What I find unacceptable is your pretending to have answered when i fact you did nothing of the sort. That is not polite.
What has become clear is that you are not here to argue in good faith. It should be quite obvious to anyone that what people object to with Hale, Smith et al is not that they disagree, but the manner in which they do so. You refuse to accept this
One can only hope you are more honest in real-life than you have been here.
Thank you for that pearl of wisdom JJ. The presumed slur on autism-spectrum sufferers in your second sentence? Classy.
It’s the topic that won’t go away: object to sexism in any moderate and restrained fashion, and out come all the trolls whose arguments are so weak they have to attack strawmen spelled out in all capital letters. It’s fascinating, but not for a good reason.
There is one positive that I’ve found from this so-called “Elevatorgate”: it is a kind of Hogwarts’ Sorting Hat for determining who goes “in the sack” and to whom it is still worth listening.
Ophelia, would you prefer to be considered a part of Ravensclaw or Griffindor? :)
Thanks, Philip. I’m a classy guy. I’m actually sipping scotch as I type this. It is seven hundred years old, cask-aged.
As a fan of feigned indignation, I do appreciate your crying about the presumed “autism-spectrum sufferers” slur (lul). I notice that you haven’t taken to task Salty Current for equating clown school with poor thought, despite the fact that professional clowns are currently the most oppressed minority.
wildlifer wrote:
You have that option. Not everyone does, and those who don’t have to factor that in to their decision making process. Why do you not seem to grasp that?
JJ, I’m quaffing a rude shiraz cabernet – or rather, I was; the tide has run out. Unfortunately it didn’t have anywhere near seven hundred years’ maturity – but then it probably didn’t need it. Rough, rude, and immature was actually all that was needed.
Fine for you to “lul” about the autism-spectrum. Those of us who are on it, or have loved ones struggling with autism, might not get the humour. But you’re being cool and edgy flinging slurs around. That’s nice for you, whatever floats your boat.
I would love to have time to address all of the cases of flawed arguments and insults hurled on this thread, but life is short and your comment at at #301 was much closer in time and proximity to grapple with. (As it happens, I rarely see eye to eye with SC as the Pharyngula records will show, and no, I don’t have to justify why I didn’t criticise her for it. It’s faulty logic both to assign people to a mere two sides in this debate, and then to assume that everyone on a particular “side” agrees with everything that is said on that “side”.)
Max at #220:
This is false. We had a parade of anti-Watson rants before the comments from McGraw, from some of the same people who later joined the noise parade at ERV. Also, if that were true, you wouldn’t expect all the insane obsession with Elevator Guy over there: there have been ignorant accusations that Dawkins is EG, that I am EG, and some of those loons posted a photo I took of the bar that evening and invited speculation about who EG was. There is a lot of complaining that Watson couldn’t have possibly been threatened in an elevator, that she was over-reacting hysterically, that women are not sexually harassed at conferences, that, gosh, he was just asking her out for coffee.
So let’s not lie to everyone. At ERV, the overwhelming consensus is that Watson is a bitch who deserves every insult she gets for everything she’s ever done. Heck, there were people at ERV who dug up her CV and laughed at her for getting a college degree!
Wildlifer at #248: that was a biased distortion of history worthy of Russell Blackford.
Now, now PZ, that was a low blow: categorising two sides of a debate as “rational people” on the one hand, and “sycophants” on the other hand, is nothing at all like someone criticising another person in a civil way on the one hand, and someone who seems to be a nasty piece of work, abusing her power to humiliate someone on the other hand. That’s a false equivalence!
bluharmony was interesting. Try again.
This is going to get thinned out. That may leave some orphan comments that refer to ghosts; sorry.
Steve @ 174 –
I told you. Did you not even bother to read my reply before again telling me what to do?
I told you why not: because she stopped answering my emails a month ago. Let me spell it out for you: there is no point in my asking her anything directly because she won’t answer.
[…] More dog whistle […]
Well, she seems to be under the impression that you have stopped responding to her, and seems mystified by it. So there seems to be some mutual misunderstanding going on. Perhaps you could both sort it out in some way rather than resorting to public scrapping? If she doesn’t respond to an e-mail address, there is a blog where you can, like anyone else, post.
For goodness sake, this has gone too far. I saw enough of this kind of thing on usenet in the 90s – communities wrecked by the kind of arguments that would never have happened if people could have spoken face-to-face. Do we really have to repeat all the old mistakes, and end up with the Gnu Atheist movement as a series of distrusting cliques? I see PZ slagging off Russell Blackford, and probably along with many others feel like despairing that Gnu Atheism has any future.
Are we supposed to be rationalists? Can’t we do better? Or do we have to watch good people turn on each other in an utter waste of emotion and energy?
I’m sorry, I kind of can’t help but notice this, Gender Traitor/bluharmony:
» PZ: So let’s not lie to everyone.
By all means, let’s not do that. So, here we go:
At ERV, the overwhelming consensus is that Watson is a bitch who deserves every insult she gets for everything she’s ever done.
Patently false. Neither was there a consensus about using that word, nor was it simply about her being that, nor again was it about everything she has ever done. It was about her behaviour in one specific video. At least try to get the facts right, and then argue why what happened was indefensible.
Heck, there were people at ERV who dug up her CV and laughed at her for getting a college degree!
Also patently false. First, yeah, “digging up” her CV is really hateful; and second, that part of the thread was about the question whether she did in fact get a degree. The matter was settled after a handful of comments
that was a biased distortion of history worthy of Russell Blackford.
So you ‘just argue’ with your friends, do you? This here looks a little like character assassination to me.
Which has what to do with what now?
Ohh … right …
Beattie,
What happened to you ?
There was a time when you you were a rational, intelligent and civilised person. Then something happened, and you are no longer any of those ? Do you not miss that ?
I am assuming there is no organic disease at the root of your change. If I am wrong in that, I am sorry,
MKG:
Oh, well I hope you’ll forgive me for taking a stab at answering it, as it refers to my words to GT/Blue Harmony.
A ‘blatantly sexist term’? I think not. Certainly it CAN be sexist, in certain contexts, but it there is nothing inherently gendered about the term ‘honey’–it is equally applicable to both males and females, at least in the US. I would have (and have done, in the past) used the same term if similar circumstances had arisen in conversation with a male.
As for condescending, it was not intended to be. (perhaps I should have prefaced it by saying “Not to be condescending, but….”–ah, missed opportunities!) Rather, it was intended as a term of support offered to someone who claimed to be upset by the dialogue here and with whom I had shared a reasonably civil exchange of ideas over the course of several hours. If GT herself found it condescending, I certainly apologize to her.
I eagerly await Ophelia’s ruling ;)
Aww, you all hurt Gender Traitor’s feelings! Don’t you people know the trick? You’re supposed to preface everything with “don’t take this the wrong way,” which then absolves you of any potential negative implications of anything you say.
For example:
Don’t take this the wrong way, Gender Traitor, but you’re a whiny tone-troll who should fuck off.
See? I specifically told her not to take it the wrong way!
I love that we’re back to discussing classic arguments like “it was just coffee”; I’m getting nostalgic for the early days of ElevatorGate.
I wasn’t the one who tried to make this into an argument from authority. I did not say that you should listen to Pinker because he’s Pinker. I merely linked to a video that explained in a pretty straightforward manner how old and ubiquitous the understanding of “would you like to come up to my room for X” as a sexual advance is. It was you who seemed to insist that I wasn’t allowed to mention Pinker unless I accepted his authority on feminism as well.
People are listening here, too. They just don’t accept your silliness unquestioningly.
I asked because it’s passive-aggressive crap to make such vague, unsubstantiated accusations. It’s not polite to not name names, it’s bullshitting.
Oh, I thought “To be certain of what someone else is thinking is not skeptical”? It’s bullshit to reject a parsimonious explanation for “”would you like to come up to my room for X” because of hyper-skepticism, and then make such categorical statements. Also, false dichotomy: he might have been dumb and unknowingly acted out an objectifying, harrassing social-script, thus “dumb” and “harassment” are not mutually exclusive.
So you, like Miranda, are thin-skinned about being even mildly criticized yourselves, but are ok with the massive onslaught of sexual and putrid verbal attacks on Rebecca. Precious.
Oh yeah. Having it pointed out to you that you’re wrong and behaving stupidly is just cruel; but having your genitals denigrated in graphic detail, being called a drunk, a slut, and an attention-whore? That’s all just good fun. Fucking hypocrites.
Don’t lie. You’ve had your assertions refuted in addition to being insulted for making those stupid assertions.
I’m not “offended” by gender-slurs. I simply know what cultural work they perform, and as such view the usage thereof as a regressive force in society, and those who insist on using them after being informed of this as regressive assholes.
As if having a gender-slur used against me implies respect? lol
I prefer not being respected as an individual than as a gender, thankyouverymuch.
Interesting phrasing: it isn’t harassment because people interpret it differently? well, then there’s obviously no such thing as harassment, ever, since there’s never unanimous agreement about what is or isn’t harassment
Nice; “we’re not going to stop performing regressive, sexist cultural work until you stop being soooo mean to us and criticize us”.
You do know that we’ve seen the video of that speech, right? Making up stuff about it is not doing your argument any favors.
That’s bullshit. There’s a universe between dehumanization (especially dehumanization via slurs) and personal, individualized insult.
aww *blush*
the feeling is entirely mutual. I’ve learned a ridiculous amount of stuff from you
Peter Beattie: I looked again at the various threads, just to see if you’re right and they’ve moved on. Nope, not really. They’re still asserting that asking for coffee is not the same as asking for sex, as if that was ever the point, still speculating about who Elevator Guy is, still saying the same old crap. And no, I hadn’t claimed that digging up someone’s CV was hateful, but their response was: how is it at all relevant to the topic if it actually was a high-minded discussion of ethics? They have moved on to new targets, though: now Ophelia Benson is “ugly, petty, and bitchy as Watson”, and they’re making jokes about my regular visits to prostitutes.
You’re right. I shouldn’t soft-pedal the vileness on display over there.
» Matt Penfold: There was a time when you you were a rational, intelligent and civilised person.
That’s very nice of you, thanks. :)
Then something happened, and you are no longer any of those ? Do you not miss that ?
Strictly speaking, it is your interpretation of something that leads you to believe that something else must have happened. But maybe it is your interpretation that is wrong and nothing in fact happened to me. What I find worrying is that you are apparently not even considering that you might be wrong.
As to the content: I take it you were referring to what I said with respect to PZ? You can look at the thread yourself. I have read every single one of the 2,000 comments on that thread, and it is my informed judegement that PZ’s characterisation is false. I even gave my reasons for thinking that. If you can find anything that I overlooked which should make me reconsider my opinion, I shall happily do so.
Steve @293
“I see PZ slagging off Russell Blackford”.
Yes. Well. A) You see nothing of the kind. B) I see you’ve made up with Blackford. How nice for you both.
Did you read that exchange? I defy any honest person to do so and claim it was not profoundly hateful.
I believe it then turned to the specific course requirements for her degree and her major. It was a sickening display, and I’m shocked that you can’t recognize that. “The matter was settled…” – seriously?
***
I know. It’s strange.
***
Ophelia told me shortly after Jerry Coyne’s bullying that she had written to Miranda and that Miranda was not responding to her emails. I can’t imagine any reason for her to say that if it wasn’t true, nor do I think she’s dishonest. For the record, Coyne did not respond to my emails after my comment here that he took issue with, and he didn’t post my comment on his blog. You’re condescendingly lecturing the wrong people here, Steve.
Beattie,
I will take that as no then. You do not miss be rational, intelligent and civilised.
Pity. You used to have worthwhile things to say.
Still, you have made your choice, and in this case you have chosen to defend advocates of sexism and misogyny. If people judge you one that choice you have only yourself to blame.
This is relevant to anything how, Peter? Apart from dogpiling on Ms Watson for everything she’s ever done.
I’ve read the threads in question. Anyone with web access and adequate levels in Read English is capable of referring to them. PZ’s description is accurate. To say that you are misrepresenting them is generous in the extreme.
Yep, but at least I learned something! Justicar helpfully explained why Miranda stonewalled two emails from me: it’s because I said something to the effect that it was surprising to see Justicar posting at her place when he was busily calling Rebecca Watson “Twatson” at his place – I said it on Miranda’s blog. That’s true, I did. (I don’t remember the exact wording.) I was surprised. I still am. Not as surprised as I was, but still surprised.
Anyway it’s good to have that cleared up. (Justicar rather amusingly pretended to be guessing, but he made it obvious that they’d discussed it.)
What SC said. Beattie, you’ve really lost it. What was going on there was pure, rancid, undiluted ad hominem of the most ignorant kind — I saw their nonsense about BA vs. BS vs. liberal arts vs. science and, as an educator, was outraged at the bilious stupidity of what they were saying. These were people who know <i>nothing</i> about the academics of college degrees, and they were <i>making crap up</i> to bash Rebecca Watson. And now you want to claim it was some kind of polite discussion where they quietly and quickly settled the mere facts of the story?
Matt Penfold asked you a question in #298. I’d ask the same thing, because your weird distortion of the actual events that occurred is symptomatic of a real problem with your brain, and I don’t understand it.
» PZ: I looked again at the various threads, just to see if you’re right and they’ve moved on. Nope, not really.
You were talking specifically about RW’s degree and you said that people “laughed at her for getting a college degree”. Your comment does nothing to back that up.
They’re still asserting that asking for coffee is not the same as asking for sex, as if that was ever the point, still speculating about who Elevator Guy is, still saying the same old crap.
Which is in response to nothing I said.
And no, I hadn’t claimed that digging up someone’s CV was hateful
Calling it “digging up” surely implies something, since her CV is only two clicks on Google away from anybody who is interested. Sure, you very probably didn’t want to imply my hyperbolic ‘hateful’ (hence hyperbolic), but then my implied question was: what was your implication?
but their response was: how is it at all relevant to the topic if it actually was a high-minded discussion of ethics?
First, it wasn’t “their” response, as if somehow everybody on that thread voiced their agreement with some position; it was at best ‘some people’s response’. And the question was in what way the specific degree RW got qualified her to speak on scientific topics. I fail to see how that is worth chastising those people over.
And I hope you don’t think my comment about your remark about Russell is best just ignored. (Which I realise is slightly prejudicial of me to say. But that’s kind of the point I was trying to make: that this kind of discussion has the effect of making people lean more toward their prejudices and away from an open discussion.)
Well, as long as they never criticize your ideas or your thinking abilities, they can haterage all over Watson, women, strawfeminists and anyone elses who isn’t you all they like, right?
Have fun with the happy cuddle club over there.
Peter:
Please, do explain how this is relevant. I’m looking forward to it.
Only people with science degrees are allowed to speak on scientific topics? well fuck me, I guess we’ll have to kick out Randi, Penn, Teller, Greta Christina, and a host of other skeptics/atheists out and never let them speak publicly on any science-related topic (so, any topic that isn’t about their favorite color or food)
what shittery is this?
Steva Zara – again – why are you telling me all this? Why don’t you tell Abbie and Miranda? Please don’t repeat that it’s because you respect me more. That’s bullshit.
Pardon me Jadehawk, but I thought that needed emphasizing.
Shorter:
Sample comments:
…
And just below, this from blu:
Hey Beattie,
Do you approve of all those comments SC has quoted ? And do you approve of Abbie Smith allowing such comments on her blog ? I know I frequent Pharyngula, and I know the regulars there can sometimes be pretty feirce, but the degree of hostility, resentment and outright hatred I see being posed on Smith’s blog is something else.
Mind you, one of the endearing features of Pharyngula is that not even the regulars are exempt from the horde’s craving for flesh. Not matter how respected you are, if you make an idiotic comment you are going to get ripped to shreds.
So if Justicar has it right (and as I mentioned, it’s pretty obvious that he and Miranda discussed it), this is where Miranda decided I was persona non grata.
I’d said to Justicar, “I notice you don’t call her “Rebecca Twatson” here, the way you do on your blog. Why’s that?” He talked a lot of bullshit…and then Miranda said
I was a little shocked at that. If I know somebody uses sexist epithets – a lot, and with relish – that’s somebody I don’t want commenting here. It is my business if the comments are at my place – and in fact it’s anybody’s business, the way racism is anybody’s business, the way the Vatican’s way with child rapists is anybody’s business. If the epithets are posted in public places, they’re anybody’s business.
So I replied
Apparently that was the ender.
Ok. And it’s fair enough – Miranda has been turning a blind eye to torrential sexist garbage ever since. I think she’s wrong to do that. I think she’s doubly wrong to complain of her own “thin skin” while having such a thick one about sexist shit thrown at other people.
PZ, instead of instantly and gratuitously assuming that there must be something wrong with my head, how about you quote some evidence that the discussion of RW’s degree is indeed “profoundly hateful” and “pure, rancid, undiluted ad hominem”? (And that evidence, for your broad assertion, would of course have to be a representative sample.) To take my disagreement over that question as indicative of my being (pathologically, no less) wrong is the definition of begging the question.
Beattie,
If you need evidence, go read it. All three incarnations.
If you have not read it, I think I feel free to tell you to shut the fuck up. And if you have read, I feel free to call a liar and to shut the fuck up.
To the extent that women are seen as inferior and only really any good for sex, words used to enhance their inferiority are insults which demean all women, regardless of how they are used. Context cannot justify them, because their effectiveness as stigmatising terms derives from their original specificity. They come from a time when women were sexual possessions used in negotiations and bargaining and were naturally referred to in reductive terms, and they continue to express the view that women are contemptible: otherwise their use as insults would be incomprehensible.
E.g.
– shit is disgusting, so call someone a shit, or crap, etc: but this devalues only the person addressed: shit is not a person.
– women are contemptible, so call a man a girl, a woman, or a cunt: and this exploits the depersonalised status of all women and girls in order to insult the addressee.
Some strange people do just throw out insulting words of all kinds as a mere matter of course, while those who take them seriously either avoid them or use them with full intent. I think that the peculiar habits of odd individuals shouldn’t be allowed to obscure the central issue. I also think that the odd individuals ought to have their consciousness raised.
At the most an apologist might argue that some expressions are now harmless to the extent that their original meaning has been forgotten generations ago, and a milder meaning has since been attached. That’s why some people talk about regional differences. Actually what is, I think, presupposed is a culture which has imbedded the values which make such words insults in the first place: the reductive view is simply taken for granted. I think that it is true to say that demeaning words which refer to a woman or her sexual parts retain their original force for much longer than words relating to certain other aspects of life like religion (few people seem to care very much about blasphemous epithets like “bloody” and “damn” nowadays). I think the same is undoubtedly true for racist words and other kinds of sexual words; that is to say, they dehumanise certain groups of people whenever and however they are used: their impact does not seem to lessen over time, but becomes culturally imbedded and taken for granted. In this process, the depersonalisation of certain groups of people becomes increasingly hard to discern, even to the victims themselves, until something happens which raises awareness within society.
Fighting these words raises so many hackles and creates so much confusion and incomprehension because it brings up the underlying assumptions, with their associated learnt behaviour, and arouses compensatory denials on various levels. Similarly with some of the objections raised to Rebecca Watson’s apparently mild request for men not to do the sort of thing that made her uncomfortable on one occasion, and with the suspicion that so often confronts women who report sexual harrassment or actual assault. Both these considerations are inseparable, and their centrality to the behaviour of contributors to Abbie’s despicable “monument” is a good example. What is plainly visible to some is the subject of denial by others, and the more accurate the observation the more insistent and rancorous the denial.
The argument about context and what people actually intend, and this or that particular word, is a bit academic and an effective means of distracting people from the central issue. The point is that many people are being abused by the use of words like these, and no one who claims to value humanity and believe in the equal dignity of every person should use them. Not because insults are necessarily always out of place, but because insults which derive their virulence from an abusive view of whole groups of innocent people cannot be defended by anyone who claims to stand for human rights.
» drbunsen: Please, do explain how this is relevant. I’m looking forward to it.
*sigh*
The question never was how the discussion of RW’s degree is relevant. If PZ had wanted to say that, he would presumable have said it. What he did say, though, was the the discussion was “pure, rancid, undiluted ad hominem” and “profoundly hateful”. If you think the discussion was irrelevant, fine. No problem with that. I wouldn’t agree with that, since I think it is fair to ask how somebody with a communications degree can be so bad at public speaking (which was part of that discussion). But then neither you would have to agree with my assessment nor I with yours. No reason whatsoever, for example, to summarily declare somebody mentally deficient because they don’t come to the same conclusion that you do.
Actually, I think I got them all (might have missed one or two). More could’ve followed later, but what I quoted above was the conversation. If you want people to stop thinking there’s something wrong with your head, you’ll stop trying to defend it.
(By the way, I think #8 was blu.)
Peter:
It’s like you’re not even trying.
It was.
Oh quit the fucking lies Beattie.
It is not about simple disagreement, it is about the manner in which you disagree. Being dishonest, which you have, is not acceptable. If you bothered to read the comments at Smith’s blog you will see overwhelming evidence of sexist and misogynistic attitudes. Smith condones those, indeed she has said she is proud of those making them.
Disagree by all means. I have no problem with that. But when you support sexism and mysoginy in doing so then you no longer have any right to be treated as simply disagreeing.
» Matt Penfold: Do you approve of all those comments SC has quoted ?
That, of course, was never the question. The question was: are these comments “profoundly hateful” and “pure, rancid, undiluted ad hominem”. And my answer is no, they aren’t. If it is anybody’s job to explain themselves, it is surely those guy’s who made the accusations. Quoting a sample is a welcome first step, but if you won’t say what exactly in there is “hateful”, you’re not serious about discussing the issue.
And if you have read, I feel free to call a liar and to shut the fuck up.
That certainly adds to the sane and friendly atmosphere.
Out of curiosity, I skimmed the TAM9 speakers. More than half of them, including several “luminaries”, don’t have an obvious degree, let alone one in a scientific domain.
The commenters on the excerpt that Salty posted apparently have very hazy ideas of what academic degrees entail or mean (and before I get the “What do you know?” chorus: I’m an academic research scientist with a Harvard BA and an MIT PhD).
I think solid grounding in both the sciences and the humanities is an prerequisite for being a full-fledged and effective human being in private and in public. So the ad feminem sneers on that thread merely show blinkered ignorance and willful malice along several axes. The primary reaction to reading that excerpt is the overwhelming need to take a shower.
Wow.
» SC: It was.
Oh, snap! Didn’t see that one coming. Sorry everybody, SC’s killer argument just convinced me that I was wrong about everything. Will try harder next time. Promise!
So many people get “snap” wrong. It’s what you say when two people say the same thing at the same time. It doesn’t mean “ow” or “ya got me” or “zinger!” or anything like that.
Peter, here is one small collection from ERV.
But I have a better idea – go to one of those threads and do a search for bitch, cunt, twat, Twatson – and just look at the numbers. That should answer your question – if it’s a genuine question. I can’t believe it is though; I can’t believe anyone could read those threads and see no sexist ranting.
It certainly was the question, since I asked it. I note you were unable to answer it I also note your dishonesty in claiming it was not the question.
Sorry. I was assuming you had some decency left. Clearly I was mistaken to assume that.
I dislike liars, and I dislike bigots, or those who support bigotry. You have shown you fall into both categories. Why should I be friendly to you ? And as for being sane, I think you need to examine yourself first.
Ophelia,
I don’t think anyone here has a thick skin. That’s why you have to actively protect certain posters from having their behavior criticized in just the same way that their own behavior is being criticized.
My killer argument was quoting the comments from that thread. That you would need for someone to explain to you how our characterization of the exchange was accurate (I’m at a loss to find any part of it that isn’t profoundly hateful*) says a lot about your ability to read and to think like a decent person.
*A couple of them actually regret not being able to participate in that specific area of bashing (his word), but want to reassure the others that they don’t want to deprive them of their fun.
Peter Beattie,
You aren’t just wrong, you are making asinine arguments about why you aren’t obviously and profoundly wrong.
The entire attack on Rebecca Watson has been an ad hominem.
Peter, it doesn’t take a degree to tell you’re full of shit.
As for the questioning of sanity, in a way it is being kind. We all know sometimes we say stupid shit. I was offering Beattie a way out, by allowing him to offer up a medical excuse for his behaviour.
He could have come back and said, “yeah, sorry, been on some powerful painkillers recently which made me act a bit funny. Sorry for being such an arsehole”. It would have saved him face.
Still, we know now he really is sexist and misogynistic. Or totally batshit insane. Or both.
Oh I love this:
Really? I’ve pretty much only heard it used the latter sense.
That being said, doesn’t the fact that so many people use it that way indicate that it has taken on that meaning? :-)
Ben, give me a break. You’ve made your point, over and over and over again. Enough already!
I didn’t know that in order to be a skeptic you had to have a degree. If you look at my local group of Skeptics in the Pub (the Copenhagen chapter), it has been started by three people, of which two haven’t finished university (myself included). I know the same is the case for other chapters of SitP.
Being a skeptic, or writing about science for the broader audience, requires a skeptic mindset, nothing more, nothing less. And to be honest, that appears to be a much rarer thing than a science degree.
What I find really sad about this whole story, is that it has made me loose respect for a lot of people, who I otherwise considered allies, and which I often were on friendly terms with. Still, I agree with Ophelia and PZ, this sort of debate is necessary, if the movement is ever going to move forward.
GH, yes, I’m afraid it pretty much has. It annoys me though, because I use it the antecedent way, and it won’t be understood.
Kristjan, same here. But now that it’s out…..it’s no good just ignoring it. (As you agree.)
I think it’s a generational shift in meaning Ophelia. I only encountered the “Oh, snap!” variant in my 30s, before that the “Snap!” card game variant predominated.
SC has answered you quite well in #305, Peter Beattie. I particularly liked this outraged comment:
That isn’t surprising at all — it makes me wonder if that person graduated from a vocational or tech college. We hoity-toity academics tend to think that students with a college degree ought to have some knowledge of history, language, art, and philosophy in addition to science and math…or rather, as too many people seem to think, how to code video games.
Also telling is the reference to Kasey Grant. Grant is a nice person, very intelligent, but she also works as a stripper and prostitute, which damns her in the eyes of a lot of people. So basically, that was an attempt to call Rebecca Watson a whore.
I was thinking it was more regional or rather national – my version is UK; it’s not used that way at all in the US except by a few nerds who pick it up from reading Enid Blyton or something.
I was going to comment that while it is important to have a sound understanding of various topics and practicing humility when a subject is far removed from your expertise (and experience), you should still have some confidence in conclusions you reached after extensive research but with only a high school diploma to my name I’ve no business addressing a group of skeptics.
I did some of Peter’s homework for him – the numbers search. Here’s the count:
bitch – more than 100 – apparently it doesn’t count higher than 100
Twatson – ditto
cunt – 75
(In theory some of that could be attribution, but in reality very little of it is.)
Ophelia,
But you haven’t made yours. I’ve said that you’re engaged in a kind of double-standard and special pleading. I still don’t know why (or if) you think you’re not.
I mean, I think it’s understandable that you feel comforted by aggressive defenders. It is necessary to have them loudly and aggressively pushing off misogynists and their apologists, fine — that’s fair. Sign me up.
But they’re not just going after misogynists and apologists. (Steve Zara is just the latest example.) And, tellingly, we’re not allowed to criticize these people back — people just say, “Oh, that’s good old so-and-so, just ignore them, that’s their thing”. Well, no. Being awful is Abbie’s thing, too — does that mean Abbie doesn’t deserve to be criticized for it?
julian –
That just isn’t necessarily true. Self-education is our friend.
Ben –
No, I don’t feel comforted by aggressive defenders. Actually it makes me uncomfortable, especially right now.
But I also don’t want you doing my policing for me, or pouncing on particular people repeatedly.
That’s all the more true because I can’t email you. I’m right about that, aren’t I? You’ve said you hate being bullied via email and you want all such discussions to be public or nowhere? But that creates a handicap.
There it is again, that passive-aggressive shit that is made impossible to address because it doesn’t have enough substance to it:
“some posters”? like who?
Hey enough of all this talk about other people. Let’s talk about me. That’s the important thing. Abbie says
I’m a lot uglier than Watson; I’m repulsive. Abbie on the other hand is gorgeous.
But what does that actually have to do with anything?
on that note, however, I finally understand why sometimes topic-drift from the specific to the general on Pharyngula is interpreted as a passive-aggressive attack on oneself: apparently sometimes, “some people” really does mean “you”.
Well, Ben did say who in a previous comment, which I promptly deleted. He’s not being coy – but he is being a giant pain. He means Salty; he always means Salty; and he keeps picking away, despite having been asked to stop.
pretty people are always right; ugly people are always wrong. Have you learned nothing from Disney movies?
No, you use “jinx” for that.
Sheesh. I’d say something about ‘old people’ and prescriptivism, but you’re youngling compared to Liberman, Pullum and Zwicky.
I see. sorry about the comment, then.
Jadehawk —
Ophelia told BS Nelson explicitly and repeatedly to stop the passive-aggressive swipes. Essentially, he’s acting like a five-year old who’s angling to see how long he can keep pinching his sister before his mother loses her temper.
And not so incidentally, Steve Zara has done a textbook illustration of an apologist in this thread (and a few others, in the past).
“Physics”? Who are we talking about here? PZed? Dawkypoo? Hitchens? Harris? Dennet? Novella? Randi?
I’ll note that one of “the greatest minds in physics alive today” doesn’t know his arse from his elbow when it comes to biology – and he seems to be very unskeptical when it comes to his pet theory of the universe (forgetting to test the null-hypothesis when trying to spot evidence of pre-Big Bang cosmology).
They are. As well as dismissive, sexist, mocking and crude.
I understand you probably feel the same could be said of much of what happens at pharyngula and that Ms Watson really is a ‘dumb bitch’ which may be why you think what’s being said at ERV is entirely appropriate. But comments like
“Did you think I was making it up? She got inside JREF because she ingratiated herself to James Randi doing card tricks and claiming to have been a street performer(before she got kicked off the forums). That is when she started Skepchick and started rung fucking her way up the Skeptics in the Pub ladder.”
seem (to wholly uneducated me) to be about nothing more then humiliating and putting Ms Watson down. I can understand (although I don’t always feel it’s appropriate) doing this to powerful figures with a great deal of authority (you need it to bring them down to manageable levels). Here, though, and anywhere where sexist/racist/bigoted insults are the not only the norm but the weapon of choice, I can’t get behind it.
I said that to another person in a different context because I resent unwritten laws, especially among strangers behaving dogmatically. Expectations between strangers should be plain as day, in a place of mutual trust — which, as far as strangers are concerned, is the public space.
But when you seem to be proud of upholding a double-standard, it’s not plain as day. I would keep going after the bullshit claims made by X, it’s because I have reason to criticize those claims. That doesn’t make me “police”, any more than X is the police.
#338
I question your methodology.
Numbers here:
18 “bitch”
15 “Twatson”
21 “cunt”
“Monument” current post count (1937) / “dog whistle” current post count (341) ~ 5.68 (All post counts obsolete. Poor connection stability.)
18 x 5.68 = 102.24
15 x 5.68 = 85.2
21 x 5.68 = 119.28
Does my math add up?
If you’re referring to me – sorry. I didn’t think of it as defending you, to be honest. I’m tired of Steve Zara’s patronizing requests for certain people to moderate their tone and emotions. He’s been doing it for some time, including early on when he acknowledged he had almost no knowledge of what this was even about. It bothers me that someone would be lecturing people on their emotions or their expression when he doesn’t even know what the anger and hurt feelings are about.
You are not. Please stop saying this.
This is a person who thought a picture of her abs constituted some sort of a point in a debate concerning a Pepsi blog at Sb.
In the context of this playpen, I approve of this analogy.
That’s why I asked. I knew you hadn’t said it to me but I don’t remember the context or the particulars; I just noted it as apparently meaning I shouldn’t email you (but only apparently; I wasn’t sure).
I’m not “proud of upholding a double standard” – I don’t know what you get that from. But as for “I would keep going after the bullshit claims made by X, it’s because I have reason to criticize those claims” – you haven’t been doing that. You haven’t been asking Salty about specific claims, you’ve been needling her, repeatedly, often out of nowhere.
For now, if you’ll excuse me (he said, as if he had conversed all night), I’m in aching health and I am trying to watch My Little Pony.
No, neither did I, now that you mention it. But I can’t keep up with Ben’s onslaught, so I miss things. :- b
Hmmm, I can’t see anything BUT the language. The language leads me to believe that Abbie and Miranda are feeling slighted that they weren’t asked to speak. Real life evidence that they ARE NOT respected feminist/skeptical/humanist voices, but Ophelia and Rebecca ARE must be difficult for their pretty pretty princess brains to process.
Ophelia, I do not know or care what you look like, but your brain and language are gorgeous!
Svlad – good luck with efforts to watch My Little Pony!
heehee
Nelson is passive aggressive with Improv Joe, he is straight up aggressive with Salty.
Nelson, Josh was pretty blunt to Steve Zara – who may be the nicest person and all but is dead wrong here- how come you didnt call him up on it? Or myself? I have been deliberately rude to some assholes on this thread too, yet again nothing on your radar. This singling out of SC is the problem and not Ophelia’s putative double standard.
I do think that Salty was unnecesarily rude to Moewicus earlier in this thread and she was in the wrong because she misread what he wrote – but Moewicus dealt with it directly. Phil Legge had something to say about SC too. That was fine. Ophelia didnt have to nanny both those interactions.
Reading “Why don’t you? In fact, why don’t you go there and fucking stay there?” again, it was out of line. So, retracting that remark with an apology to Steve Zara.
:- )
Thanks Salty.
I hadn’t remembered that one (I skimmed at speed) but it seems like a good candidate.
Now Ben: I really don’t want a deputy moderator. Thanks anyway.
Oh, I’m sorry Ben. I thought this was Ophelia’s place. My mistake. Do go on.[1]
[1] No.
Having just returned from a pleasant long weekend away with my partner, am I correct in guessing that this particular bad penny is enjoying its final appearance? Or is that too hopeful?
I have no idea Ms. Benson but you also appear to be a fucking joke. I can sorta see that. You do seem to be funny every now and then.
Anyway, here’s blueharmony. Posted because she gives permission and I find her thinking strange.
“Words are protected free speech, and can only be criticized on the basis of decorum or propriety.”
There’s likely some legal meaning I’m missing behind what you’re saying there, GT (am I correct in assuming you’re a law student?) but what about relevance, defamation, effect, ect,ect,ect?
And I stil don’t understand your point that Ms Watson receives the comments and threats because ‘she’s Watson.’ It seems to be to effect that anyone who’s dismissive or condescending (characteristics you believe Ms Watson has) deserves anything that comes their way. if you don’t mean that, I apologize, but that’s what it seems to keep coming back to with your group. She’s a complete bitch/Cunt with a capital C so there’s no reason to get worked up. This view also seems hypocritical given that many of the sexist comments were worded the way they were because the speaker knew they would illicit a stronger response then another insult. Given the standard you set of trying to cause damage, shouldn’t you also actively condemn those speakers?
Ah another piece of shit has turned up from the cesspit. John Greg- who has spent hundreds of hours on thousands of posts on Watson all over the net – obsessive much?
in what context is that true?
“protected free speech” just means one cannot be legally sanctioned/censored for it. Criticizing certain language for the effects it has on society and on individuals has nothing to do with its legal status
Yes, I was, both. I was half asleep. I didn’t care for the critique of my insults, but that’s all. So sorry to Moewicus, too.
***
Here are some gems from blu/GT at ERV (I’ve bolded some of the best parts):
*Someone might have called her this, but I haven’t seen it.
Did something go wrong with the formatting at #366 Julian?
Mirax,
This is half true. I didn’t mean to be passive aggressive with Improbable Joe. It’s just that I got his (presumably, a his) monicker wrong in the way you did just now, and it struck me as extremely funny that we were arguing about it. Though to be totally candid it also strikes me as funny when people (like, in this case, Improbable Joe) say “I’m so disappointed with you :( :(” when I don’t know who they are, whether they had any prior opinion about me at all, and/or whether or not they make any kind of emotional or intellectual effort into reading and comprehending what has been said. And as a rule, I’m not impressed with the effort that a lot of posters here put in. Eyes glaze over quickly on issues where a bit more thought and attention to phrasing would be helpful; cf. Josh Slocum.
That’s a problem, but I don’t want to be 100% aggressive in those cases. I’d rather just lightly tease them, roughly in the way I teased Athena for being a bit pretentious in another thread. Not in a “I hate you, horrible monster” kind of way, but as a kind of pinch in the playpen.
It’s not until somebody says that they’re “100% aggressive” — and evidently so proud of it that it becomes their internet shtick — that I can’t help but say to myself, “Well, I guess that’s that, then.” Tit for tat is not being a deputy, or any such nonsense — it’s being fair.
With respect you you, I just haven’t seen enough of your posts to know whether you’re playing the “100% aggressive” game. I can tease you too, if you want, but I also haven’t seen you say anything that is disproportionate, cruel, pretentious / intellectually lazy, or absurd.
They went looking for it. I believe that was what PZ was trying to get across.
PZ said ‘the people who dug up.’ This isn’t wrong or a lie because ‘hardly anyone laughed.’ Especially when several posters did including Ms Smith.
Why?
Wouldn’t the right way to go about this be to review what she’s said or how relevant her discussions are without all the sexist bullshit? I’m not even a fan of Ms Watson and stopped listening to the SGU podcast because I didn’t find her interesting. Hell if it were just she’s an idiot or totally fucking condescending, I might even have been on your side of this.
SC, you are apologising? Two in a row? Stop! You are going to confuse poor Nelson now.
Where is Beattie to defend SC’s latest selection of comments from Abbie Smith ?
Any chance he has given up, seeing as how 1) it is a crap cause and 2) he was crap at it anyway ?
Bert and/or Ernie,
Thanks for taking the time away from the bath to share your thoughts. But I’ve respected Ophelia’s wishes, to the extent I understand them. But double-standards are not understandable.
That comment got shitcanned. It might have stayed, had it not been for the nickname for PZ –
In fact that’s one of the adorable things at Abbie World that we haven’t mentioned yet: they think it’s funny and telling to say PZ is a gurrrrrrrrrl, which is to say, they think it’s contemptible to be female.
huh. so I guess when she claimed to “empathize with any feelings of fear or intimidation Rebecca had”, she was lying? what a surprise.
wow, what a vile thing to say
because as we all know, if unwanted sexualization is happening to many or most women, it’s not sexualization. Because if it’s “normal” it can’t be bad, right?
also, I do love this bit of raging hipocrisy:
right after saying:
Mildly perplexed, I admit. Also re: Paul W. If she stops setting fire to the hair of non-anon newbies, the monocle will fly right off my face.
I don’t have double standards. Will you knock it off?!
I probably should have said earlier that we can chat over email if that makes you more comfortable since I trust you pretty well.
It seems I was correct in thinking her few posts saying she cared were mostly for the sake of trying to relate to this group. That isn’t necessarily bad (diplomacy and what not) but it’s a little duplicitous.
Really don’t get this. Blueharmony said she empathized with women receiving unwanted advances or feeling sexualized (feel free to correct me if she never did) and here she is telling them to suck it up.
I also just love the strawman about how “neo-feminists” (?!) think men are monsters. How did that go again… “I don’t hate men, I hate assholes. It’s not my fault you can’t tell them apart”
It is interesting (in observing this endlessly returning bad penny) to note the number of legal claims that are being made about certain words, almost as if there is a dawning realisation among at least some people that it is indeed possible to say something actionable on a blog.
Of course, there are significant jurisdictional differences. The US tends towards the relatively freer end of the spectrum, the UK is at the most restrictive end, and the EU arrives in a similar place to the UK but gets there via Roman law conceptions of privacy, rather than common law conceptions of defamation. Australia is at a point mid-way between the UK and the US, while making no use of a ‘right to privacy’ at all.
Awww, I missed it. Sounds Vox Dayish — he likes to refer to me as Pharyngirl.
What has me scratching my head is this business about “radical feminist propaganda”. I’m not an expert on Rebecca’s work, but she strikes me as a pretty moderate, ordinary sort of feminist. She’s not exactly Twisty Faster.
Misrepresentation.
Those are far from the worst – just some from blu/GT that show her to be…less than forthcoming on this thread. (She also praised Justicar for his great intelligence [!] and extended to him and Abbie a FB invitation.)
Shocking, I know. Also from her, above: “nothing happened to Rebecca in the elevator and nothing [could]*. The chances of Rebecca being raped or molested were about as high as lightening striking her right then and there. She saw an opportunity and went for it.”
I actually apologize all the time! Something that annoys me hugely is an unwillingness to say you’re sorry.
*She originally had “couldn’t” but later clarified that she’d of course meant “could.”
PZ: appart from trying to be cute, do you have anything of substance to answer to John? Here is his post (insults removed):
PZ Myers (#274) said:
“Heck, there were people at ERV who dug up her CV and laughed at her for getting a college degree!”
You are wrong on all three points.
1. No one “dug up” her CV; it’s publically available on LinkedIn.
2. Hardly anyone laughed at her for her academic credentials. Her academic credentials were brought up firstly to determine whether or not she in fact had any, and latterly as arguing against her having a legitimate background from which to discuss science — or most anything of what she is called upon to speak on.
3. It was a university degree, not a college degree.
If you are going to continue blatantly lying to shame and belittle people, perhaps you should at least make a vague effort at getting your belittlement facts straight.
Mama always said, integrity ih-uz as integrity duh-uz.
Thanks you for your answer…
Right, because nobody’s ever been raped in an elevator. Jesus.
I will just add that some of the remarks SC collected @305 are sailing very close to the wind — even in more moderate Australia — when it comes to defamation. This is a basic explanation of the relevant law, as applied to blogs, with some cross jurisdictional remarks:
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2009/04/01/defamation-for-dummies/
# 371 My, you have some high standards there, Nelson. I get that you are one of the good guys (and I’d rather meet you in a dark alley than SC actually :-)
However, you are being rather presumptuous about how thoughtful or eloquent others have to be. Your personal standards are just that; you can ignore or call up posters for their ‘lapses’ as you wish. But I do think that you are being somewhat blind to your lapses and you have definitely been more aggressive to SC than has been warranted. You are now also chastising Ophelia because of this obsession with SC.
I dont post much but read B&W regularly and Sc has had her run ins with Ophelia in the past and even flounced off from here a time or two. Ophelia has not pulled her punches with SC. No mollycoddling such as you accuse.
Sc may be touchy and rude on occassion, but she tends to gain my respect. She is capable of self-reflection, reasonable about apologies and pretty honest with her aggressiveness. The gender traitor remark for example. She disawowed the term once she found out that it had some questionable antecedents.Yet you keep going at her for using this term. She regrets the term but she was totally right in her assessment of Abbie’s behaviour. You ignore this. Double standards?
* sort of a joke
I know, right? When you’ve gotten to the point fo accusing Rebecca Watson and Jen McCreight as radfems, you’re pretty much lost to all reason.
1. Why are you crazy people hung up on the phrase “dug up”? All it means is that you went looking and found it on the internet, where she made it publicly available. Do you think I’m implying that you hired a PI to find it? That you had to use shovels?
2. As has been shown above, yes, people mocked her credentials…out of raving ignorance. She certainly does have a legitimate background to talk about science, and has done so competently. Or are you going to require a Ph.D. to talk about “most anything”? How many Ph.D.s are chattering away in that thread?
3. WTF? This matters? In the US, very little distinction is drawn between a “college” and a “university”. There is a vague and inconsistently applied difference, that universities offer post-grad degrees while colleges don’t, but lots of places ignore it.
Man. You really had to stretch to turn that into “three points”. Pathetic.
@ Giordano – Why does PZ have to answer to pathetic loser whingers like you or John Greg? Crawl back to your hole.
Do you think I’m implying that you hired a PI to find it? That you had to use shovels?
Dont forget that you are dealing with intellectual giants here , PZ.
And what was really bizarre is that it got started from Rebecca discussing the topic of sexism as experienced at conferences. You know, via communication between people. The thing Rebecca got her degree in. So Abbie and crew were mocking Rebecca for having a degree in communication and for discussing communication, and saying that Rebecca wasn’t qualified to do that, when Abbie and crew don’t have degrees in communication. So wait, what again?
That would also be weird, because Abbie is so vehemently anti-feminist. Why would she feel slighted at not being marked as a feminist voice in skepticism? Not that it would surprise me, but it would be pretty self-contradictory.
Racial, sexual, or homosexual slurs are worse than regular insults by any reasonable standard of decorum. If you call someone an idiot, you’re usually attacking what they believe or how they are acting. If you call someone the n-word, the c-word, or the f-word (I prefer not to use the terms), you are attacking who they are and all the other people that term refers to. I don’t understand why this is a hard concept to understand. I don’t understand why people are still defending the usage of these terms. It just doesn’t make any sense at all. I know that I wouldn’t want to associate with people who continuously used those types of words on a regular basis.
Martin@389
Yes, statistically anyway, she was in greater danger of being raped in the bar, than she was in the hotel elevator, or of biting a dog than being raped in a hotel elevator:
http://depletedcranium.com/hotel-elevator-rape-versus-man-bites-dog-which-happens-more/
Thanks for your answer PZ, I will look into this.
Mirax: because I still have the hope that PZ is a polite, skeptic individual and doesn’t need your approval to answer anything he feels like?
In terms of damages, it is worth remembering that as far as British and Australian courts are concerned, on-line material is published where it is read (the server location or a .us address means nothing). This is why the US laws (where, when it comes to a public figure, actual malice must be made out) may not apply if a given plaintiff can show that quantifiable damage occurred in the UK or Australia.
Agreed Jadehawk (#368):
Also, I know skepticlawyer will correct me if I’m wrong, but I was always under the impression that in the U.S.the idea of free speech means the government can’t censor or prevent citizens (or residents? or people? not sure who this applies to) from speaking their minds. It’s irrelevant when an individual or non-governmental organization is trying to squash speech. I think, anyway.
This is why the US laws (where, when it comes to a public figure, actual malice must be made out) may not apply if a given plaintiff can show that quantifiable damage occurred in the UK or Australia.
So if Watson ever loses a speaking gig in the Uk or Australia -due to doubts engendered over her academic qualifications, she can sue Abbie and/ or identifiable commenters?
@Phill at #388 quoting John:
In the U.S., a university degree is equivalent to a college degree. Some universities are called colleges (like liberal arts colleges), for reasons that I’m not very clear on, but they are the same level of education. Thus, point 3 is a non-issue when someone who was educated in America is being discussed.
I’m generally wary of the “they’re just jealous” response to criticism, so I doubt ERV and Miranda are criticizing the conference because they haven’t been invited. However, 1)ERV has been bragging about how she’s been approached by organizations who’d prefer her as a speaker than Rebecca Watson, and 2)some dude whose name I don’t remember was whining on the CFI thread about this conference that only radfems were invited, and that women like ERV or Miranda should have been invited as speakers, as well
That link’s basically a joke. 1) The methodology is guaranteed to produce a lower bound on the true figure. No attempt was made to estimate the extent of the undercount. This could have been done by, say, using the same methodology to estimate the total number of rapes in a given year, and comparing to official figures. Then we have unreported rapes to factor in on top of that. 2) The wrong question was asked. The relevant quantity is not the number of rapes which occur in hotel elevators. That’s guaranteed to be very small for the very simple reason that women typically spend only a very small fraction of their lives in elevators. The question is whether the risk of rape is disproportionate to the amount of time spent. 3) The question is overconditioned. There’s nothing particularly special about hotel elevators, as opposed to elevators in any other building. One may as well ask how many rapes occur in elevators with green carpets. Break a category down into enough separate groups and you can make the number of cases as small as you like. The question is what relevant distinctions can be made. Hotel vs other buildings isn’t one. Furthermore, nobody ever claimed that elevators were magical rapist-attracting machines. The reasons for concern are that they’re a) enclosed spaces which b) may not be possible to get out of in a hurry, c) may not be possible for others to get in to in a hurry, and d) may not be possible for people outside to determine what’s happening inside. If it’s rational to be concerned about rape in an elevator because of these properties, it’s rational to be concerned about rape in any other space in which has those properties, absent some other mitigating factor. Therefore, the relevant figure is the risk of rape in all such spaces. 4) Considering a single elevator ride is also overconditioning. If one considers a single car journey, one might reason that the risk of an accident is extremely low, and therefore there’s no compelling reason to wear a seatbelt. But if that reasoning holds for one journey, it must also hold for the next, and the next…and not wearing a seatbelt substantially increases one’s cumulative risk of being seriously injured or killed in an accident. Reasoning back from that cumulative risk leads one to the conclusion that there is a compelling reason to wear one’s seatbelt during every journey, even though the risk in each is low.
Oops, I didn’t mean to add that extra L in Phil in my post at #404.
Also, that last sentence is kind of convoluted. What I’m trying to say is the US education system does not differentiate between college and university in any meaningful way. They are the same level of education. I think that in some (or many) other countries college and university are different levels of education, but not in the US.
Anyway, PZ also commented on this, so I think it’s been clarified by now. :-)
I still can’t get over:
What could this even mean? What SitP ladder? It’s ludicrous. She donated her time to organizing skeptic events in Boston. Is this person suggesting she had to sleep with people to get that coveted unpaid gig?
***
Ha! You do that, champ.
Gah. Apologies for the WoT. I swear it formatted correctly in preview.
Via Volokh, here’s a nice summary of the relevant US defamation law:
http://www.citizen.org/documents/WritingwithLibelinMind.pdf
Very different from the law in the UK or Australia, but I have pointed out our summary of the UK and Australian law for the simple reason that
(a) RW may not be a public figure for the purposes of US law (Rieux will know; I hope he’s around to comment), which means even the very generous US defamation law becomes stricter on this point.
(b) Some of the claims about RW outlined by SC @305 are very specific. I was unaware of their specificity until reading this thread. I made the mistake of thinking that the whole of that ERV thread amounted to a ‘swear-a-thon’ and not much else.
(c) So many people from so many different jurisdictions read the relevant skeptical and atheist blogs where these claims have been circulating that their authors and publishers ought to consider whether they are exposing themselves to suit in London or Sydney. Remember, in the UK, the defendant (the person who made the claims outlined in SC’s comment @305, for example) must make out truth.
Godless Heathen: I am a Brit, qualified to comment on English, Scots and Australian law, not US law, which is why I’m hoping that Rieux (a USAnian practitioner) will put in an appearance shortly. I will say that at least in the jurisdictions where I have experience, I would be counselling various parties to turn it down quite a bit.
oh yeah. I can totes see how such comments are much easier to deal with for an “equity feminist” than the evil bile spewed by us “neo-feminists”. It’s accommodationism all over again: Those New Atheists Feminists are so strident! And mean! Let’s criticize them, instead of the Fundies Misogynists!
<blockquote>That is when she started Skepchick and started rung fucking her way up the Skeptics in the Pub ladder.</blockquote>
It’s the cretins’ variation of the sexist canard flung at successful women – women only get anywhere at all by dispensing sexual favours. Sooner or later all these misogynist bastards will turn on their female host and the few fucking stupid women cheering on. It’s the one inevitable thing.
So do I. I wouldn’t think either of them would expect to be invited to that particular conference, because they don’t work on that subject.
(On second thought…since according to Miranda people were invited simply because they had the appropriate genitalia, working on the subject must not have been a relevant criterion. Funny coincidence then that all the women invited do work on the subject. I wonder how that happened! Gosh, it seems kind of miraculous.)
They take data into consideration, ponder on it and then give opinions. That’s what we do…
Yep delusions of intellectual probity.
Oh, I am so sorry, Phil! I’ve appointed Mirax my official liaison to Phil Giordana on Butterflies & Wheels, and you now do have to get Mirax’s approval before submitting any further questions to me. And if they are even close to being as dumb as that last trio, Mirax is authorized to set fire to them and flush them down the toilet.
interesting; editing allows strikethrough, but it doesn’t actually show in comments
Does the position come with a stipend, PZ? I’d do it for free of course but you know us radfeminazis, we try to grab a dollar off a man when we can…
I’d also suggest that the particularly awful claim from @305 made about RW not be repeated further, for Ophelia’s benefit. UK courts are particularly bad at drawing a distinction between original publication (of a false claim) and derivative publications of the same (false) claim.
<blockquote>That is when she started Skepchick and started rung fucking her way up the Skeptics in the Pub ladder.</blockquote>
Thanks for highlighting that. I’m astonished — that’s a cheap remark. I’ve known Watson for quite a few years, and that’s definitely not how she became popular: there is not SitP “ladder”. What it is is that she successfully organized and hosted skeptical events — she put in time and effort on the ground, doing the work to promote skepticism. Which is far more than any of the clowns slagging her at ERV can say.
ha ha!! I figured it out. repost from #411, because it’s not funny without the strikethroughs:
It’s accommodationism all over again: Those New
AtheistsFeminists are so strident! And mean! Let’s criticize them, instead of theFundiesMisogynists!You DO know that that’s irrelevant, since you thought these deeply silly questions relevant enough to re-ask them?
Yes, and they’re wrong. Demonstrably so.
That’s rather ironic, given that I just provided several reasons why those numbers are useless, to which you’ve given no response.
I didn’t say the building didn’t matter at all. I said that there’s no reason to single out hotels.
Well, it is kind of relevant, since whoever asked them originally was remarkably stupid…but that someone then thought they were so clever that they needed reposting is pretty damning, too.
From the precious little I remember of my civil law class in high school at most she’d be a limited public figure which has a looser standard then a private figure (joe schmoe who has nothing to do with anything) but not as loose as a public figure (a president, senator or the like). But then the criticism would have to geared specifically towards the relevant discussion (in this case sexism) and she’d have to show her reputation had been harmed.
They also mock and demean people for being offended at being called a cunt.
May I ask you a question? What’s the point behind the ‘…’ Generally I read this as saying ‘there’s a lot more I can say but won’t for whatever reason.’ Is that somewhere near the mark? Anyway, it just kinda seems passive aggressive. Especially when you haven’t made any arguments of your own. It has a way of grating the audience’s skin, so to speak.
Stick to the front seat. The person in front you in the event of a crash does not need your skull smashing theirs. Pretty good excuse to ride shotgun.
You’re funny.
***
? I’d hope they’d appreciate the difference between repeating the claim and posting it for purposes of criticism, negation, and mockery. It’s being posted by people pointing out that it’s a particularly awful and stupid claim.
Julian, it means that like all the recent visitors from the septic tank, Phil has grievances. PZ has dungeoned him at his own blog – with very good reason.
it’s almost as if Phil didn’t actually read the answers PZ gave. Or, for that matter, the questions he reposted.
But Russell and Phil became Facebook friends a few days ago. (I don’t know who asked whom.) Isn’t that touching?
PZ: How in hell are the original questions stupid? Please elaborate. You just can’t call something “stupid” without giving reasons. I found John’s questions to the point. Why? Because they adressed your portayal of Abbie’s “crowd” and the strawman you built about them.
Dear septic Phil,
Prof Myers is not obliged to waste any more time on little shits like you. Do Fuck off. Kindly.
He’s fucking off. Not voluntarily.
SC@431: sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t; sometimes continued repetition of the claim can also be viewed as gratuitous. For that reason, I tend to err on the side of caution. It is, after all, a particularly toxic claim.
Nobody likes an ironic sexist. It’s in no way clever. And if you’re being misrepresented by PZ he should fix that. You do deserve to address your accusers.
in fact, let’s dissect those comments (and why am I even referring to them as questions? they were assertions; incorrect or irrelevant assertions):
that only makes sense for a very odd definition of the word “dug up”, i.e. either a literal one or one with implication of criminality. Otherwise, googling something and finding it is already “digging up”, which is exactly what happened.
“hardly anyone” is not a refutation of PZ’s point, since as long as those few were the same ones who dug up RW’s resume, his statement is correct. Lastly, the concept of a “legitimate background” from which do discuss science is laughable; it’s verging on an ad hom, or some sort of reversed appeal to authority,to dismiss her for her supposed lack of credentials rather than for the actual points she’s made and knowledge of the subject.
completely irrelevant, since these are virtually synonymous in US English
You know, I’ve yet to see anyone address the numerous comments pulled straight from ERV and explain how -both- those threads are somehow anything more than a giant cesspit of misogyny perpetuated and encouraged by Abbie. Can someone PLEASE give an explanation as to how that shit isn’t hateful? Can someone PLEASE, with quotes, links, citations and as much LOGIC (not words) as possible, explain why we shouldn’t point to Abbie and Miranda and say “these two people, despite being women, aid and abet the biggest misogynist shitpiles we’ve seen to date — and by that virtue are misogynists”?Or am I just going to have to trudge through more novels that blab and whinge on about how mean we all are for pointing that out? Because if so, I’d like to be notified first so I can go back to the Great Pharyngulian Echo Chamber from whence I came and not offend your privileged little misogynistic five-year-old heads.
I’m sorry but, I can’t stop laughing right now.
Skepticlawyer,
It is, after all, a particularly toxic claim.
It is crystal clear to you and a whole lot of us but did you read Peter Beattie’s defence of that up this thread?
Dont want to impose on you but can I get an answer to my #402? Thanks.
OH NO DID WE HURT THEIR FEEFEES????!!
*reads the quote in julian’s post*
*dies from irony overload*
mirax – while you wait for a reply from skep lawyer – as far as I know, Rebecca could sue them right now. I have no reason to think she will, but I think she could. They’ve called her a liar and I was always told (when B&W was hosted in the UK) that that’s actionable.
Calling us vicious and psychopathic. I can’t even begin to understand that.
In other news, red is blue and water is highly flammable.
Well you see, Josh, they’re all very thin-skinned.
I’m sorry but, I can’t stop laughing right now.
You and me. The sheer amount of self-pity and obliviousness is incredible isnt it? Tears and tantrums and shit flinging. Remind you of anything?
As a vicious follower of the radfems, I completely care about the effect of my insults on those precious babies. I dont do this kind of thing on the net often (er, never before) and want to hurt those bastards.
#440
I remember Ophelia. Your frequent exasperation with G Tingey and how Stangroom would come thundering when the L word was used.
I am curious as to what “quantifiable damage” entails.
Yes exactly, mirax.
I see J*sticar’s pointed out that the first quotation in my #305 (from him) was about Ouellette, not Watson. It didn’t seem to fit, but it came right before Abbie’s so I thought it was part of the same discussion. I assume there were others before it about Watson’s alleged lack of a degree that led Abbie to ask about it, but I’m not going back there to check. Anyway, it’s totally cool since it was about Ouellette and how she doesn’t deserve full respect because she lacks a PhD in physics.
Abbie is asking inane questions about why Watson should be invited to speak on the subjects she speaks on. I wonder if it could be because she’s investigated them and is a, y’know, good speaker. A good communicator. I hear she even has a degree in that.
SC WHY DO U HATE MENz!!!21?
Mirax:
As a general rule, to succeed in a tortious claim, one has to make out harm or loss. Not always, of course–some torts are per se actionable (trespass, for example). It is always easier, however, to make a claim for damages if one can present books of account showing how much income has been lost, how many invitations have been withdrawn, all the while tying those losses temporally to the publication of the defamatory claims. So RW may have a claim that sounds in damages.
It is worth pointing out that the UK/EU and the US are very different when it comes to defamation, and that everything has been brought to a head over here during the recent News Ltd fiasco. I’m pleased to say that I spotted the News of the World imbroglio some time before it happened; the relevant law on point is explained here:
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/04/07/be-civil-or-be-silent/
The link explaining Australia’s defamation law (similar to that in the UK, but less draconian) is here:
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2009/04/01/defamation-for-dummies/
The main difference between Australia and England is that an Australian defendant may make out justification, while an English defendant must make out truth. In the US, the position is reversed: the plaintiff must prove that the statements are false.
It is fair to say that the US position is more consistent with the presumption of innocence, placing the relevant burdens on the plaintiff. In the UK, the burden is (unusually) placed on the defendant.
I have heard it suggested that this situation arose because the common law never really developed any adequate privacy protections; indeed, the privacy protections that are now becoming part of English law have Roman law origins, as I outline in the first link above. This meant that the common law tort of defamation became a monster, in effect having to do two jobs: protect both reputation and privacy.
What’s a she-hag? I thought a hag was a she by definition.
@John Greg
Mr. Greg your quote from Slate was “… people who are predisposed to psycopathy only in certain circumstances, namely when they perceive themselves to be competitively disadvantaged in society and find themselves at home in a group of other anti-social peers.”
You went on to say this in part explained why we were callous and indifferent to the feelings and insensitivity towards others (as shown by how we’ve insulted you). You say this of a group you perceive outside your own when the group you seem to be identifying with has sustained a campaign of belittling an outside member (using insults aimed to do nothing but cause damage) and when the current moderator has even admitted she’s being intentionally vicious because she wants Ms Watson to focus her attention on her. All of course while flailing at even relatively minor insults and preserving any action or comment that can be perceived as attacking a member of your group even if the speaker meant no malice and regretted using it (for example Ms Benson’s use of fuck you at Ms Hale.)
And now your defense is ‘all comments are welcome here regardless of how extreme.’
Mr. Greg, forgive me, but I find that all to be very funny because it’s such an obvious double standard from someone who has been very vocal about how much they despise double standards.
ps I am confident that just as I read your reply, you’ll read mine.
Whatever the origination of English/Australian defamation and libel law, they’re horrid. Truly horrid. They pervert the presumption of innocence by reversing it, and they are (as you know) regularly used to punish legitimate speech far beyond their actual jurisdictions. I wish more lawyers would devote more time to reforming them and less time instructing people on how to comply with them. A little more outrage, please.
SC:<blockquote>Abbie is asking inane questions about why Watson should be invited to speak on the subjects she speaks on. I wonder if it could be because she’s investigated them and is a, y’know, good speaker. A good communicator. I hear she even has a degree in that.</blockquote>
Jealousy was suggested earlier, but I don’t think that jealousy explains Abbie’s explicit support of toxic misogyny. But what would, then — benevolent sexism?
julian #451:<blockquote>and when the current moderator has even admitted she’s being intentionally vicious because she wants Ms Watson to focus her attention on her.</blockquote>Uhh…I knew it was bad…I didn’t know it had gotten to this level of bad…but link, please? I need to see it for my own eyes, no matter how toxic it may be.
(The “liar” item comes from item 5 in # 305 above.)
Oh my god. I didn’t read SC’s comment sampler at 305 the first time around. I have never, ever seen anything like that. It’s insane.
Oh I wouldn’t say I regretted it, exactly. Certainly not in the sense of thinking it was too harsh for Bambi (Miranda thinks she’s Bambi to Abbie’s fierce honey badger) – not when Bambi had seen fit to say that the women invited to speak at a conference were invited simply because they had the appropriate genitalia. No no; I think Bambi uses a Bambi mask so that she can say things like that and get away with it. No I didn’t really regret it, I just thought I would do the adult thing instead.
But her not being treated as an equal there? Well, um, she’s working alongside the greatest minds in physics alive today. She’s not on equal footing with them despite having her unspecified level of a “graduate degree” in science communication. That’s code for didn’t manage to get a PhD.
Wait, that’s about Jennifer Oullette, and they think that excuses i have no idea what kind of degree she has, and is a perfect example of why it doesn’t matter — her writing is beautiful and clear.
Jeez, I hate degree snobbery, but it’s almost funny when those undistinguished cretins do it.
Josh Slocum #456 wrote:
Despicable is about the best word I can think of to describe it. Oh, and vile.
And, apart from anything else, it demonstrates the massive disconnect from reality of Gender Traitor/Bluharmony, who whined about how our describing Abbie and her He-Man Woman-Hater’s Club fratboys as misogynists was far more cruel and hurtful than anything that had been said about Rebecca Watson.
And then she wondered why I called her deluded.
This is no more uncomfortable then having to refresh two different pages, Mr. Greg. Continuing this small chat should be no difficult task or inconvenience.
I’ll try to.
Actually what you did was use an article you read in Slate magazine to explain the behavior you noticed here on this blog and among several others. Our callousness and disregard for others was caused by our inclination towards psychopathy. No where in that comment did you try to point to our hypocrisy or even cite a crude remark (which has been done on ERV several times.)
Given the behavior you and the commentors at ERV, that you would describe an outside group as psychopathic when your own would fit the exact same standards and then some could be reasonably said to be holding a double standard.
If you do, however, feel that the Slate article just as well explains the behavior of yourself and everyone at ERV, then I do apologize.
To be clear, Justicar’s comment is not about Oullette, but about Linda Henneberg, a physicist at CERN about whom Oullette wrote. His claim that she can’t be among equals because she doesn’t have a physics PhD is fairly ridiculous, however.
Still pointless degree snobbery. Is she competent? Does she do good work? That’s what matters.
Yup. And it’s not even as if she’s at the bottom of the food chain, credentials-wise. CERN has a ton of minio…err, postgrads.
Well, up to a point. I’m an ignoramus myself so I’m no degree snob, but when I’m in the dentist’s chair I don’t want to find out that the dentist doesn’t actually have a degree.
:- p
Oh, that’s right. I had forgotten Ouellette had been talking about someone else there. Of course.
How is it that these people can’t seem to understand that there’s a vast difference between insulting terms aimed at one specific person and those that, by their very nature, are insulting to an entire gender? It’s not rocket surgery, FFS.
Seems to be one of their biggest hang ups as Mr. Greg’s response to me illustrates. It isn’t (in their minds) about the misogyny behind some words or expressions. It’s about how those expressions are taboo and their need to defend them against the agents of censorship.
Which is ridiculous as no one here (hope that isn’t presuming to much) takes issue with bad words. Just bad words where a whole gender becomes synonymous with bad.
Max, if you return:
You said
The problem, which I and others have tried to emphasize is precisely that these epithets lack aim, by definition. If you are trying to insult an individual by likening them to a female (or body part thereof), it is implicit that femaleness is a liability. It. Is. Sexism. Yes, even if the insult is deployed by a female, or to a female, or out of earshot of females, or in such a way that no female on earth is ever aware it was uttered, or any other scenario you can think of. Also see Moewicus at what is now #239.
You say, in response to my asking you to contrast cuntbitchsnatchtwatpussy et al with racial slurs:
I have just explained why they are ‘worse’. As have others. As to the qualifier about ‘real insults’, a completely true story:
A man I know hails from a small town in central Nebraska. When I first met him, back in the early ’90s, he confided rather sheepishly that his parents (whom I met shortly thereafter)–nice, salt of the earth, hardworking midwesterners–had a little black poodle named “Nigger”. “Nigger” was known all over this very small town. All friends and co-workers of both Mr. and Mrs. were acquainted with the dog. The town vet would send postcards to the house, addressed to “Nigger [Redacted]” to remind his owners of his vaccinations. The little grandchildren would come and visit, and although they usually called him “Nig” or “Niggy”, they were well aware of the full name and its meaning. Perhaps it is obvious, but I’ll state it anyway, that there were no black families living in this town. In fact, my friend told me that he had never met a black person until he went away to college in the big city. So, as far as I’m aware, no actual black people ever knew of this dog’s existence. The dog’s name was not chosen to deliberately harm people of African descent, i.e. there was no intent to ‘hurl an insult’. The choice was merely an extension of the unconscious othering that is all too common in such homogenous cultures. All in good fun, right?
Right?
julian wrote:
I know I don’t; it only takes a browse through a few comment threads on Pharyngula to establish that. But I’m also perceptive enough to realise that calling someone a fucking ignorant assclown only insults that person, while calling them a cunt insults both them and – via the implication that a cunt is an inherently bad thing – women in general.
Looks like I was right. Reading what Ms (Prof?) Kazez had to say on the topic and they all seem to be in agreement that sexist language is in bounds because nongendered insults are just as bad.
Most people here think otherwise.
Personally I don’t get worked up over it because balls is still a compliment. Having balls means you have courage, strength and toughness. Whereas pussy (and female genitalia) still means you’re weak, thin skinned and a girl. Everyone, despite the association dick shares with being rude or forceful, still wants to throw like a man and act like a man and be a man.
julian@471
Could we not use the admonishment of “don’t be a dick” as an equivalent to “don’t be a privileged asshole”?
It has a certain appeal. :)
Probably not as that would associate maleness with privilege. This is gonna sound weird but men aren’t privileged because they are men. It isn’t a cosmic law. It’s how things played out. It’d be like associating white to the exclusion of other races with being privileged. An Indian enjoying his privilege over an untouchable wouldn’t be acting like an Indian enjoying his privilege. He’d be acting like a White.
I don’t think we should talk about which type of insult is worse. The thing is sexist, racist, classist, etc. insults are othering, which is why they are a problem for equality. Generic insults like “shithead” or “stupid” aren’t, and that’ why they’re not a problem in terms of equality. It’s not that racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. remarks are worse in some cosmic scale, it’s just that they’re a problem for equality, which happens to be the topic we’re talking about, while the others aren’t.
I think I wrote a comment very similar to this one at ERV…
“privileged asshole” it is then!
Point taken on the “white” substitution.
I noticed earlier on in this discussion that one of the interlopers wanted to play Thread Cop and demand an arbitration from Ophelia on the use of a “sexual epithet”, which happened to be “honey”, directed at GT/bluharmony by Jen Phillips. The same poster also publicly announced elsewhere at Abbie’s new thread that he was hoping this would be a demonstration of Ophelia’s willingness to impartially hammer down on all epithets alike, or else it would smack of her being hypocritical, and the selective enforcement against some posters and some epithets would likewise appear unfair.
I’m not fully convinced by the full reasoning behind this, though. I actually find myself in agreement with the guy that Jen’s use of “honey” in context read as primarily condescending, and to a rather lesser degree possibly sexist also. To the extent that this has been pointed out and remarked on by subsequent posters, I’m glad that Jen has apologised for using it: in case it wasn’t obvious, some people are trying to conduct a discussion civilly, while others have truculently declared that they are merely trolling and using certain language to press people’s hot buttons. And there’s been snarky comments (raises hand), and insulting comments, and a lack of charity in judging people’s intentions. It’s totally beyond my powers though to critically dissect everything that’s gone on in such a free-wheeling discussion (the current word count on the thread is 45,000 words – half a million characters!), and I also think it is slightly unreasonable to expect that every epithet hurled can be effectively and always policed. So many thanks for drawing our attention to this mote – which we may perhaps agree should not have been used – but meanwhile, what about the colossal beam?
The other reason I’m not convinced by the reasoning involved is that I find it very difficult to see how this sort of strategy is actually helping the situation. Dawkins’ comments on Pharyngula suggested that a minor inconvenience was “zero bad” and therefore not worth talking about, and a counter-view was that while non-zero, the inconvenience was at the low end of a spectrum of abuses and to minimise that was a derailment of a worthwhile discussion. So I suppose the ensuing point about asking Ophelia to police words like “honey” is trying to pin a charge of hypocrisy on her for treating such words as “zero bad” if she doesn’t condemn them as well as the more extreme language like “cunt”, “twat”. In a normal thread of conversation that would be reasonable, but the current topic is actually a continuation of several recent and prolific threads here at B & W, where the point of discussion is the extreme end of the spectrum of sexist language (and we are not talking about usage between friends with a shared context who might use those words, or how apparently those words are viewed as almost innocuous in the UK). It may look like the comparably minor infractions are going unchecked, but while uncommented upon they are not unnoticed, and insisting on concentrating on them or else “hypocrisy!” is actually a derailment tactic exactly like the other example.
You know, after reading SC’s magnanimous (and, well, beyond the call of duty) apology to Steve, I thought about doing so as well. Until I read his comments again. No. I’m not sorry I said what I did. Steve has a habit—years long, and it’s been evident all over Dawkins’ place since at least 2007—of putting on his Prim-n-Prissy persona and wringing his hands all over peoples’ blogs if they don’t live up to his capricious expectations. This frequently causes him to soft-pedal truly disgusting behavior in others because he has a Pavlovian response to “vulgarity”. Apparently, this shuts down his ethical weighting faculty; thus he spends more time castigating Ophelia for being righteously upset at Miranda Hale et al’s bullshit than he does actually calling out the real bad actors.
Shorter me: he blames the victim if they say ‘fuck’ too many times.
Why are there posts that I didn’t write attributed to me in this thread?
@Jen: No, I didn’t take it the wrong way; I took it the way you said and you meant. Thanks.
Good to know, GT. I was going to respond to MKG’s cross post at ERV’s place, but by the time I noticed it there the discussion had moved on considerably.
Which posts are not yours here?
Here comes the waaahmbulance.
GT/Blu are you referring to SC’s list @369?
Which one isn’t yours? o.O
GT/bluharmony,
In case you haven’t noticed, a swathe of posts have been deleted, and the previously established numbering damaged as a result. For example, in my post which is currently sitting at #266, I made a response to post “#297” – which doesn’t imply that I’m a time traveller capable of criticising another post that was not written until seven hours later. (It would be nice, but it’s sadly not possible. The actual “#297” I replied to is one of the ones that are no longer here.)
@Drbunsen attributes a block quote to me, but it’s not something I’ve ever written. I haven’t read all the posts, nor do I want to for obvious reasons, but as I was quickly scrolling down the page, I noticed that. Is this common here?
And thanks again Jen, you’ve been lovely and I actually appreciated your kindness.
Philip, it doesn’t really matter. That’s fine. I’m just noting that some of the words attributed to me through block quotes aren’t my own. And I haven’t noticed any renumbering, because I haven’t been reading. I just wanted to clear up the issue with Jen. She’s great.
GT/blu … do you mean #281?
Because that appears to be the only blockquotes he attributes to you.
Also, they both do appear to be yours.
o.O
Hi GT/bluharmony,
I notice Dr Bunsen has been rather liberal with blockquotes through the course of the thread and not nearly as forthcoming with citations, so you might be right. The two block quotations that I can see are attributed in #281 (August 7, 2011 at 8:33 am) are your words, though, from your posts #174 (August 6, 2011 at 9:07 pm) and #175 (August 6, 2011 at 9:16 pm) respectively. I presume it’s one of the others that has a faulty attribution?
@GT/Bluharmony:
Using Ctrl+F to search all of drbunsen’s comments, I find only that are attributing anything to you: #281, #283, #284 (which has some strikethrough editing), #299 and searching the phrases in those shows they are indeed things you wrote.
Others were quotes by Jadehawk and Peter.
What are you seeing that I’m not?
*only four that are attributing . . . yeesh, I hate when I miss a word
Oh, only one of those comments actually state they’re attributed to you GT, #281. The rest attributed to you is worked out from context.
That’s fine, maybe I said something and forgot, I really don’t want to look through the comments again. Thanks, though. I appreciate you taking the time to look for it.
I’m guessing it’s the strikeout quote that GT is referring to. If it is, I think most people will recognize that the struck-through words are your originals, and their replacements are Dr. B’s rephrasing.
So….GT. As I mentioned last night, I do have respect for you, not only because I think humans in general are worthy of respect, but also because you came to hostile territory and stayed a bit, even though you were roundly challenged and, by some, insulted. Not everyone would have stuck around after the first barb. So, Kudos for that.
From your responses last night, I gather that you were upset by the resistance you met here, and perhaps that is why you posted a somewhat different version of your encounters on the latest incarnation of ERV’s monument (#15 on the ‘Kyle’ thread) It’s a rather frustrating read, largely because, insulting interludes aside, it mischaracterizes the position of most of the people you engaged with, here, including myself. It’s been amply explained that this is not about personal offense. It’s been amply explained that it’s not about censorship or prudish attempts at policing other’s free speech. As to your recap of my particular contributions, I certainly did not say that “what happens on the internet doesn’t matter”–nor do I believe anything of the sort. The closest I got to that was to try and persuade you not to take so much to heart the surly comments of a couple of complete strangers, in the comments of one blog on a Saturday night. Not that it doesn’t matter–obviously it matters to you. Do you think it might matter to Rebecca that (for example) people are discussing her sleeping her way into a position of notoriety?
I understand that Jen, and I think that both sides have engaged in mis-characterization. That post was about my feelings, nothing more. In any case, personally, I am done talking about Rebecca and EG, both here and there. If anyone wants to discuss whether equity feminist viewpoints are acceptable in atheism, I’m happy to do so. But it appears that they’re not. And that’s OK – you’re allowed to define group membership as you wish. I’ve met some interesting people in the last few weeks, and you’re definitely one of them.
Regarding your last point: I have not participated in the discussion you’re talking about because I don’t discuss the sexual choices of other women unless they’re relevant and already public. I am sex-positive. I think women should be free to make whatever sexual choices they wish and not be judged for them. The only point I have to make is if you make your sexuality public, people might respond to it. For instance, if you engage in self-objectification, then people will be more likely to objectify you. Even if your own views on female sexuality have changed, others may not realize that. That said, no one should be treated as a sex object unless that’s what they wish, and everyone’s feelings matter.
Originally posted on skepchick with no response:
http://skepchick.org/2011/07/a-weird-time-on-bloggingheads/
[so read it there if you want to read it. OB]
All this banning and comment moderating going on at B & W, it’s truly shocking, right Phyraxus !
Clownshoes.
Jesus H Christ.
Some of the shite I have read in the last two days getting through these threads is so depressing. the post above from Phryaxus being right up there in the depressing stakes.
Some of the interpretation of plain comments is also utterly depressing.
Don’t really know what to say.
There’s been some light though, and while this is like pulling teeth, I’ve seen much of worth amongst it all.
Hey, Phyraxus, I waded through your rant (your orthography failures and inability to master blockquotes even when they’re as easy as they are here certainly didn’t help) and couldn’t quite figure out just where exactly did PZ trash your credentials, or indeed even bothered to give a shit about them. Could you pretty please point it out to me?
Phyraxus, are you still claiming that the entire elevator guy anecdote is a fabrication by Rebecca Watson?
Oh, and by the way, Phyraxus, you DO understand the difference between “by the way this person talks, they must be uneducated” and “this person’s education is lacking, so why should we listen to what they say about anything”, right?
Did he indeed claim so? Was that before or after he claimed that PZ must have been Elevator Guy?
Ophelia Benson #302
I disagree with Steve Zara. People can have multiple battles they are fighting and sometimes people that are allies in one battle can be opponents in an other battle. Steve has no business telling you which battle to focus on and he is not being fair by framing one battle as infighting just because it is a battle he seems less interrested in.
However I think you are wrong in the following:
I don’t think it is bullshit, I am often tempted in the same way. You see when someone who I consider to be the other side does something I consider wrong, it doesn’t touch me personnally, a conflict with someone from the other side, nothing surprising there. However when someone who I consider to be on my side does something I feel is wrong it affects me more, now I have a conflict with someone on my side. So there is more temptation to try and influence that person so his behaviour no longer causes a conflict with my values.
Forbidden Snowflake,
if you look at Greg Laden’s blog, Phyraxus danced around the subject at considerable length without claiming outright that RW was lying, by answering that skepticism demanded one should keep an open mind to the possibility that RW might be lying – and he was quizzed about that attitude extensively by other posters. However I think he did actually end up claiming RW’s anecdote was made up, over on The Monument thread. Sorry I don’t have a link for that. Though a slippery defense of plausible deniability might apply there too. It’s been a common trope to disbelieve anything RW said.
Thanks for the info, Philip Legge!
Hm.
An interesting thread.
—
Phyraxus’s little starfart was amusing; not least that he flounces from PZ’s blog via Ophelia’s. :)
(cf. Carlie @396)
I was wondering if anyone would be interested in discussing the effects of ridicule in situations like this. When someone who thinks differently than I do approaches me, I try to convince them of my position without putting them down. That’s been true if you look at how I’ve interacted with anyone from your side, and I’m made a conscious decision not to respond in kind to any of the hurtful insults here. I’m generally a reasonable person. If someone engages with me and politely shows me how I’m wrong, I change my mind. If someone just makes fun of me (or better, starts arguing with cited dictionary definitions of basic words like “logic”), well, I begin to assume they don’t have a better argument than the one I already heard and didn’t find persuasive. But what does attacking people accomplish? In my case, you’ve made me wary of new wave feminism in a way that I haven’t been before, and whereas I thought we were allies with similar goals, I’m no longer sure. Of course, I know you don’t want women like me because I’m far too much of an idiot, and a gender traitor to boot, but do you really think this approach is working? And if being in Mensa (a useless group) and getting into most of the top ten law schools still makes me too stupid, what’s the intelligence requirement? Is there a particular IQ number you’re looking for? In other words, what are your goals, and are you accomplishing them by making fun of people online? I realize that my side does exactly the same thing (and people there – not me – use gendered epithets), but my side has already lost since we’re the minority, and don’t have your privilege. It’s feels a bit like barking at the moon. In a movement where the low number of women is a concern, is attacking the “wrong kind” of women productive? Does it meet the goal of attracting more women to the cause? Because the top reason *I’ve* heard for women leaving the movement is not male attraction/harassment, but online abuse. I can provide at least two examples if you’re willing to engage politely, but if not, I won’t waste my time looking for them.
@Skeplawyer: I noticed you went over the basics of defamation law with your friends. Would you mind also going over sexual harassment and criminal sexual harassment in the same unbiased and educational fashion? I think there may be some confusion in this area, and it’s of concern to me because sexual harassment cases are already very difficult to prove, and women suffer from sexual abuse far more than they should.
One last thing; I am not a gender traitor. I have worked very hard for women’s rights and equality. I am a social democrat and liberal in every other sense. Don’t we potentially have more in common than we think? I’m not interested in bashing people, but I have criticized a few people who I thought deserved it, including Dawkins. Abbie has provided a place to dissent, which is important for those of us with activist goals. I think discussing the incident that gave rise to all this is fruitless, and I think what happened has showed that we have far more important issues to address?
I’m pretty sure this is hopeless, and I’ve been told by countless others that I’m just setting myself up for abuse. Still, I thought I’d try one last time because this issue is more important to me than my feelings.
Thanks for that link Philip. Most useful of Greg to have laid it all out like that. :)
But. Wow. That’s … why would you even do that?!?! What purpose does it serve to allude (in a totally on-the-nose “i-am-teh-skeptical” way) to the whole thing being a con-job by Rebecca?
Does it help to rationalise the scorn and vitriol heaped upon “that lying sexual-epitaph-du-jour”?
So much scorn and vitriol for what amounted to a “guys, don’t make women feel uncomfortable” … suggestion!
Oops, “it” not “it’s.” Typo, sorry.
Shorter GT/Blu – it’s all about me.
Seriously though GT/Blu, what was so bad about Rebecca’s admonishment to not make women feel uncomfortable that makes it so important that there are dissenters?!?
No, it’s not about me, that’s why I’m willing to try again. That’s the point. It’s about the success of the movement and about acceptance and diversity. And I have already stated that I will not be discussing specific individuals again, other than to say that I took very little issue with the statement you’re referring to and didn’t find out about this situation until it exploded in the news. I was not around at the beginning.
GT-Bluharmony:
If you want attention, why not just say so directly?
Bully for you.
Your self-praise is duly noted, for what that’s worth.
What if someone engages with you and impolitely shows you how you’re wrong?
I’ve taken the liberty of emphasising the key word there.
Impoliteness is not an attack. Confrontation need not be an attack.
Why do you consider argument laced with personal opinion to be an attack?
Bah. You’re wary of dissent towards your accommodationism, is what it seems like to me.
I think you give yourself too much importance — it’s not about you, but about society.
Confrontation has demonstrably worked, historically.
If you really think you’re so comparatively uneducated or dim, perhaps you should be listening, not lecturing.
If you don’t, what’s the problem?
You’re confusing this internet discussion with potential policy initiatives by various groups.
As for the internet discussion, some places are for those who do not resile from confrontation.
This is one of them.
I suppose this very response seems like “online abuse” to you. :)
I note that it is only the other side who is thinking in “sides” to be on, and not in issues we agree or disagree on. I don’t have a “side”, I have my opinions on what went on in Dublin, at CFI, and on ERVs monument to hate and misogyny. Those who think in sides reveal themself to be narrowminded ideologues with an agenda and an axe to grind. As an aside, I see with interest that Abbie keeps renewing her monument thread. I guess it’s TET for assholes.
No, it doesn’t. You’ve made your position completely clear and I give up. If you find nothing of relevance in what I said, that’s your choice. You have shown that there’s absolutely no room to dissent with your view.
That last post wasn’t directed at you, Rorschach. :) And that’s not what I mean; I don’t think there should be sides, but unfortunately there are. There’s lots of blood spilled over this. I’m sorry it happened.
Bluharmony, you’ve tried pretty much all the possible approaches of desperate attention-seeking aside from threatening suicide. Please, get lost, this is NOT ABOUT YOU.
WTF?
Well, as long as you’re above the shitstorm. Thank heavens for folks such as you.
Also …
But braying at them and calling them names is going to bring more women to the cause? For reals?
At most universities in the US, approximately half of the coursework required for any degree is in the liberal arts, often under the label of “general education” credits. The difference between a BS and BA is how many more liberal arts credits are required on top of those (often specifically foreign language credits). And as PZ mentioned earlier, the difference between a college and a university in the US is simply whether the institution offers only bachelor’s degrees or master’s and doctoral degrees as well.
GT-Bluharmony, you’ve made your choices. You chose to join in over at Abbie’s, defending the sexist and misogynistic slurs and participating in the public trashing of Watson. You chose to come here, using a different nym (and one which you’ve apparently bestowed upon yourself while claiming others did) and presenting your behavior at ERV in ways that are inconsistent with your posts there. You’ve continued to do so in your more recent posts. (I highlighted several of your comments @ #369, by the way, in case you missed it; at the very least you should think twice about telling tales that are inconsistent with your statements appearing on this very thread.) You’ve tolerated and joined in with the sliming of Watson and other feminists while trying to make it all about yourself. You’re a callous, self-obsessed fabulist, and if pointing that out repels other callous, self-obsessed fabulists of any gender I will indeed be pleased.
@spooky, who said that?
One more from GT-Bluharmony:
Seriously. Watson’s responses to McGraw and Dawkins were the ugliest behavior she’s seen from anyone short of physical violence, and she posts this on that thread, throwing in a little jab about her attractiveness for good measure.
@David, ’twas GT/Blu in both instances.
I didn’t want to comment on this whole elevatorgate issue, since I was late to the party and I am not actually part of the community. This thread has convinced me that I should at least comment this once, although not about elevatorgate directly.
My issue is with the extremely hostile treatment of people with dissenting opinions, which has come to be the norm not only on Pharyngula (where I expect it), but sadly also on a forum like this, of which I expected more. Most people here like to say they want to make the skeptic community a place that is more inviting to female contributors. Yet the general hostility that prevails in threads like these is something that is extremely putting off, at least to me. Obviously, I can only speak for me and perhaps for my small circle of friends – none of us would consider this behaviour inviting. The way Bluharmony and other “dissenters” have been treated, not only in this thread, has thoroughly convinced me that I would not want to be part of this community. Of course, I am from Europe, so it is of no consequence to you – I am not your target audience. But you can be sure that there are more women like me out there, in your own country.
I realize I will be called a tone troll, but I wanted to show you how threads like this can affect outsiders. If nothing else, this should be of concern to you if you have any interest in the development of a skeptic/atheist community.
Claudia, what is there to dissent about? Seriously?!
You seriously think this place is uninviting compared to one where “smelly-snatch” is bandied about with wanton abandon? Oh, but they are the brave dissenters! Hurrah and hooray!
Well, y’all enjoy that swamp.
Do you feel that the treatment of you here would have been different if you were a man expressing the same views, both here and at ERV’s? If so, how? If now, should it have been?
I seriously fail to understand how anyone could consider being attacked for one’s opinions more hurtful than being attacked for having labia.
Great priorities there…
Claudia,
It might have been better if did not actually made untrue statements in your comment. Having dissenting opinions here is not going to get you vilified. What will get you vilified is being dishonest (like you have), making sexist and misogynistic statements, or condoning the use of such statements.
Yes, I am hostile to you. Not because you disagree with me, but because to do so you lied. Honest disagree is fine,, dishonest disagree is not.
Now you have a choice. You can continue to complain, or you can admit you lied and apologise. Entirely upto you, but if you want to be taken seriously then the former option is not advisable.
I’m so sick of the accusations that people are being insulted because they have dissenting opinions. It’s not about dissent, and if you’ve bothered to actually catch up with what we’ve been saying before you decided to cluelessly join the party weeks after it started, you would have thought twice before lecturing us on tone or self-righteously demanding explanations that have been made thoroughly over and over and over again. We have better things to do than wade through thousands of comments and copy-paste them for your lazy-ass convenience. Do your homework, get with the program or get lost.
Oh, and Claudia, your being from Europe *is* of concern to us, because so are many among us. Another thing you would have noticed if you’ve decided to first read what you’re commenting on.
Claudia:
1. I wonder why.
2. So, don’t participate in “threads like this”, if you dislike them.
Just jumping in to say how you dislike a thread is (at best) pointless grandstanding.
3. Ophelia is gnu, this is her place. The internet is big.
Spooky,
Claudia didn’t mention the ERV threads. She just commented that this place looks very uninviting to her. It is possible for a place to be inviting compared to the ERV threads while still not being inviting itself.
I for one respect those brave dissenters in the KKK for standing up for themselves, for refusing to toe the line set by those inflexible dogmatists who insist they’re wrong to hate non-whites. And for those bold, unflinching examples of dissent amongst fundamentalist Christians whose sheer strength of character will not let those who want to allow gays to marry to run roughshod over their feelings.
Why, I’ve got a tear in my eye just thinking about those heroes and their struggles against oppression.
Exactly. Which implies that she doesn’t really know what the insults she finds so offputting are in response to, which means her criticism of our behavior is entirely uninformed and thus baseless.
see, I told y’all this is turning into accommodationism 2.0
for something like the 50th time: this is not a US specific issue. Did you not notice that this whole clusterfuck started because of something that happened at an event in Ireland?
Anyway: both GT and Claudia are presenting alternative reasons why women aren’t feeling welcome at skeptic/atheist events. Where were they, when these issues were discussed, over the course of a year or so, on multiple atheist and skeptic blogs? Because all the threads I saw had women come out and present three main issues: unwanted sexual interest; lack of accommodation for mothers; lack of female perspectives.
Gender Traitor/Bluharmony, please pop back to ERV’s pit o’slime, pt. 3. The very last person I can think of to ask about “new wave feminism”? That would be you. Every time I read one of your comments here, I keep wanting to offer you a tissue for all those tears. You’re tone trolling. Back to the pit now, please.
That’s a rather silly statement, in itself. To use an example from a different context: the lack of female leaders in politics is really not a particularly good reason to cheer for Palin or Bachmann.
In the context of this particular situation: if the discouragement of people who either are sexist/misogynist themselves, or who support and promote sexist/misogynist behavior ends up attracting more non-sexists/non-misogynists, then the loss of a few women who were part of the former group might well be made up by a larger attendance of women who don’t thrive in sexist environments.
Tea #528,
That is what happens when newbies stumble on your place. They don’t have the time to examine the background of certain statements but at the same time these statements can give the place vibes of being uninviting to them.
We may all agree that GT-Bluharmony deservers the responses he/she got here, that won’t change the fact how this place gets experienced by someone new.
Of course you don’t have to care about that. If you find it more important that GT-Bluharmony and similar get the response they deserve, instead of trying to make this place more inviting to new people, you can just ignore all this.
Oh please, Axxyaan.
If new people want to feel welcome at new environments, they should at least put in minimal effort to get to know the existing group, learn about their concerns and the reasons for their behavior. Instead, they stumble upon a group of people that have been discussing a certain topic for weeks, and demand that it all be explained to them all over again, lest they feel unwelcome. We hardly regret wasting a chance to hang out with such self-obsessed divas.
Also, why would a new person, on her first visit to a certain website, get so focused on a few threads with hundreds of comments, instead of trying to get the big picture by skimming all the recent posts, the majority of which contain no insults? Because Bluharmony and Claudia are being thoroughly insincere about their motivations and their reasons for ending up commenting over here, that’s why.
Axxyaan:
Given that every single commenter here must have been a newbie at some point, our evident presence given such purported uninviting vibes must seem puzzling to you.
“he/she”, eh? Psst: comment #34.
(Yeah, this background stuff can be tricky!)
Your unsolicited advice may possibly be a revelation to Ophelia, I suppose, as may be your insinuation that she should care more about page-views than about principles.
@532
You’re unserious. Yes, let’s do throw the conversation we’ve been having for weeks everywhere on the webs, over the side, because a random person appears and complains that they don’t know what we’re talking about. Come ON.
Tea,
New people have no more a moral obligation to the people here, than in reverse. If new people go by their first impression and think a place feels too uninviting for them and don’t care to spend more time to investigate the group further, they can do just that. And if once in a while some of those new people makes a mention of that, I think that is useful information. And making a mention of that choice is not a demand to have it all explained.
As I already said, you don’t have to care about this. If you don’t regret wasting a chance to hang out with people like this, just continue as before.
Marta #536,
I have made no such suggestion.
Just to make one thing clear – I am not new. I’ve been reading around these blogs for a year or two, but I am not actively contributing.
Over the last few weeks, I read way more on this topic than I should have and than I actually have time for. I told you the impression this thread (and others like it) made on me as an outsider. It certainly is a subjective impression, no doubt about that, but I tried to give it as politely as I could. I did this because I think it is relevant to your goals. You can choose to actually think about why an outsider gets that impression, or you can simply call it a lie and be done with it.
I am also aware of the ERV stuff, but I don’t see how it applies to the issues I have. The behaviour I criticised does not get any better by saying “but they do it, too!” or “but they started it!”. ERV is a small blog with comparatively few readers and a majority of posts on science (well, up until recently, at least). Abbie has always used that kind of language, nothing particularly new there. B&W or Pharyngula however, I consider major hubs for your community.
Consider this: I made a single, short post. Yes, it contained criticism. Instead of giving me the benefit of doubt, I was treated with hostility and condescension, called a liar, lazy and stupid, as well as a self-obsessed diva. If you can, step outside for a moment and try to think how that must look for someone who is pondering to be more active in the community.
Axxyaan,
Cut the bullshit. She’s not simply stopping by to tell us she doesn’t like the website. She’s admonishing us for our behavior and she’s demanding (explicitly or implicitly) that we either justify or change it, while refusing to put in any effort to learn what prompted it. (And Claudia is not the first to do this, or I wouldn’t be so pissed off by her little intervention.)
Thank you for allowing me to ignore her and advising me so graciously to “continue as before,” but I’ve decided to respond to her provocation. I hope you’re not too bothered by my decision to ignore your patronizing and useless suggestions instead.
Axxyaan,
I am rather sceptical at this point about “newcomers” to this particular issue.
1. There is plenty of evidence presented on this thread itself that the so-called dissenters are acting in bad faith and are plain dishonest. They have said strikingly contradictory (and nasty ) things on the other blog. Quotes have been presented as evidence.
2. Most basic reading of this thread would show thst people who are regular here are seeing off a wave of trolls, all from ust ONE particular site.
3. This thread is very highly charged. There are dozens of other threads HERE on B&W that are not. As a newbie, I’d receive some some rather signals in that itself = B&W is not ‘Business as usual” on this issue and if a decent woman or man, not make general tone-trolling noises immediately on this one thread. That’s pretty presumptuous behaviour for a ‘newbie” or anyone.
Fyi, I am a female from Singapore and come from a very different culture too. Newbie or not the argument from culture or gender (so fucking stupid as this site is vigorously standing up for women!) is rather useless. I dont believe that claudia is really what she claims to be. The particular word “dissenters” sets off all alarm bells.
Claudia,
The reason for our responses is that you’re acting as if our insults stem simply from the fact that some people disagree with us. If you’re not new, and if you’re in fact aware of the background as you now claim, then you should know that this is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and that you’re being incredibly insincere with that attitude – it has been explained many, many, many times that this has nothing to do with dissent.
But hey, you’re not the only one by far who chooses to interpret it like that, so no need to worry that there aren’t enough atheists around whose circles you can join.
Please note the dishonest game Phyraxus is playing in #493: he reports Rebecca Watson’s college requirements in number of courses, and his own college’s requirements in number of credit hours. Multiply Watson’s numbers by about 4 to put them in roughly the same units, and lo and behold, you discover that they’re entirely comparable.
The typical class load in a typical university is about 15 credit hours per term; total credits to graduate in a school on the semester system is 120.
Phyrax’s college requires 123 credits (which is weird for a school on the semester system), totalling up his numbers, in just science courses (although I’m not sure what he means by 35 credits in “basics”, whatever those are — I’d be surprised at any university science program that so dissed the liberal arts as to call them “basics”) to graduate?
My own university expects that students in our cell/molecular program — which prepares them very well for medicine or graduate work — will take about 60 credits in the sciences. The other 60 will be in the liberal arts, or some in optional science electives. This is entirely comparable with the distribution requirements of Boston University.
I got my bachelor’s degree from the University of Washington (by the way, there is rarely any significant difference between BS and BA; one is not lesser than the other. It’s a matter of emphasis or no difference at all). That’s a big state university, not a liberal arts college at all, and there we were required to take a total of about 120 credits in just the sciences…but that school was on the quarter system, so total to graduate was 180 credits. So the difference there was 120 science + 60 liberal arts, vs 60+60 at my current university; one third to one half of your course load will be outside your major discipline in most places you go. And as someone who has experienced both kinds of colleges, the liberal arts university is far better for creating educated minds.
Perhaps if Phyraxus had attended a school with broader expectations of a good education, he wouldn’t now be making excuses for his poor performance on the verbal part of his standardized tests.
By the way, no, you don’t need an advanced degree to be a competent science educator. Case in point: Richard Attenborough. He earned the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree (he now also has an honorary doctorate) before moving on to a career in…communications.
Sorry for that garbled post: hate typing from my phone.
Claudia @539
You are new. By your description, what you’ve been doing is lurking. It really isn’t the done thing, to decloak into a thread that’s been ongoing for days and tell the commenters that they’re doin’ it wrong, and you don’t like what they’re talking about. If you don’t like the thread’s topic, there are millions of sites with other threads. Find one that is more to your liking. Come back here when the subject has been changed to your taste.
Your manners. They are bad.
Tea,
I am not allowing or advising you anything. I am not your supervisor. I hoped I provided something to consider but I am not bothered by your decision to ignore what you think of as patronizing and useless.
Soory, So you have been lurking a year and this is the first thread you choose to make your intervention on, Claudia? You had a whole year of B&W, even during the interminable argument with the new atheist critics, Mooneygate, etc and you were not moved to comment?
I don’t think you have the slightest grasp of my goals.
Let’s be very clear here.
You lied. How would it look if we said nothing about your lie ? Personally I would say it sends a message that we condone dishonesty. That is not a message I want to send. Why should we be “nice” to liars to like you ?
PZ,
Do you mean David Attenborough ?
Though I suppose Richard also can be considered to be in communications, via the films he has made as an actor and director.
Hm, I thought I’d seen comments from you about this elsewhere. I could be mistaken, or it could be someone else with your name. Are you saying you have not commented in other discussions related to any aspect of “Elevatorgate” prior to your first comment on this thread?
Honestly, I’m more and more confused. You’ve been reading B&W for over a year and you now think “new” women will be put off by the blog because we get really, really mad when women are called cunts and bitches? I don’t get you.
Well, whatever. There’s no point for me to carry on with this. I said what I wanted to, your business what you do with it. I was quite sincere in what I wrote, but there was only one person who even gave me the benefit of doubt. Thank you for that, Aaxyaan.
Mirax, I’m sure Ophelia can confirm my non-sockpuppetry by looking at my IP.
Matt, having a different opinion is not the same as lieing.
Have a good time, I will try to stay away to not bother you any further.
Oops, yes, David Attenborough. Aren’t all brits named Richard?
Ok, two last clarifications:
@SC: this here was the first time I posted regarding elevatorgate. I commented before on B&W but frankly, I can’t remember on what topic.
@Tea: Sorry if I wrote something confusing. I didn’t mean new women, I meant women (and men) in general. I think My first post was confusing re. coming into this late. This was because I was on vacation and the whole shitstorm had already been going on for over 2 weeks when I returned to a world with internet.
Tea #552,
Not sure that was directed as me, but it is not such a strange idea that someone can be so passionate about something, that they unnerve others who would otherwise have no trouble allying themselves with the first.
Very true, but you still lied. What is worse you refuse to even admit it.
It is very simple. Simple disagreement here will not get you treated with hosility. Lying, and claiming it does, will. You lied, and claimed it does. I would ask if you can see the difference, but I know you cannot, or will not.
Please do stay away. We can do without liars like you.
Do be a dear, and stick the flounce.
you… “have a different opinion” about what gets people here upset enough to get vicious with people…? are you a mind-reader? psychoanalyst? what?
And shouldn’t we be trying to attract them to our movement? Don’t we want diversity? And what about black people and gay people who think it’s uppity to demand respect or to insist that they should have the right to marry, who bravely stand up to the nasty human rights and decency orthodoxy?
This whole idea is so presumptuous. Someone doesn’t comment or barely comments on a blog for a couple of years, then posts to say that she would totally be an ally had we not alienated her. Announcing to people that they’ve lost you as an ally doesn’t really carry much weight when you have no history of acting as their ally. Why on earth are people supposed to care if someone they’ve never heard of is going to continue to do nothing, but now bitterly? How would we even know the difference?
Let’s stop saying Claudia “lied” – on principle; for the sake of argument; because it’s inflammatory; because it’s very hard to establish; etc.
There are words a level below* that which do better.
Here’s where it started, I take it:
Claudia that’s ridiculous. Bluh is not a mere “dissenter” – she herself is less than honest. (*That’s one of the next level ways of saying it.) Bluh talked a lot of *inaccurate or plain *dishonest nonsense about B&W on Abbie’s site in the wake of her visits here. She was highly *disingenuous in what she said here and then in what she said about that at Abbie’s.
That’s been discussed here. Did you not take a look for yourself? If you didn’t, that’s both lazy and *dishonest. If you did, it’s just *dishonest.
The real bullies in this spat are at ERV, not here. We don’t call people bitches or cunts. It’s *disingenuous to scold B&W rather than ERV.
Thus I (and clearly others) conclude that you’re a fan of ERV, here to make a *pretend fuss.
Matt: I don’t know how you define it, but to me, lying is knowingly stating a falsehood with the intent to deceive. I don’t see evidence of Claudia doing that. At the very worst, maybe she can be accused of bullshitting, which is to state something as a fact without proper concern for the truth or falsehood of the statement.
This thread, especially seen in conjunction with the supermassive monument threads on ERV, is confusing. It is easy to think you understand it, even if you don’t. I only understand bits and pieces of it, so I try to stay out of it. Claudia would have been wiser to stay out of it too, but accusing her of lying seems way too strong.
Well I was assuming she is not stupid, and knew that the reason people here sometimes get treated with hostility is not simply because they hold a different opinion. Rather people here get treated with hostility because they are seen to be sexist or misogynistic, or are seen to condone sexism and misogyny, or are just plain dishonest. She claims to read this blog, so it is reasonable to expect to her know this.
I accept it is possible she did not know this, but then we have another problem, in that in order to not to know she would have to have a degree of intellectual impairment that means this is not a suitable forum for her to participate in.
To be more succinct, she was either lying or is a fucking idiot.
Sorry, Ophelia, I posted the above before I read your latest post.
Please substitute dishonesty or lying. It does not make much difference. Claudia still owes us an apology. That she has refused to give on tell us me a lot about how much she really care about being polite.
Thanks Harald. It’s ok Matt. (Keep in mind that Claudia could just be elsewhere! One does occasionally go offline…)
BluHarmony:
So your defense for doing is it that other people have done it too? Ok.
Alas, it was not only about your feelings, but also contained inaccuracies about the statements of others, including myself. You are entitled to your own feelings. You are not entitled to your own facts.
I accept your terms; see below.
Given the subjective nature interpretations of arguments have, could not all of those be applied to a dissenting comment?
Or, more succinctly, can you envision someone with substantive disagreements about Elevatorgate not possibly fitting into any or all of those categories?
Actually I don’t see much point in spending time in a place where I am obviously not wanted and regularly insulted. Regarding the lieing or dishonesty – maybe you could point me to where I did it. GT/BH quite clearly faced a lot of hostility for her first posts, which – in my opinion – contained nothing to justify the reaction she got. This was before any of her posting history on ERV was known.
When Miranda said something about not wanting to be invited to a conference because of her sex, noone here gave her the benefit of doubt. Maybe she made the same point that opponents to female quotas make – they want to be chosen over a man based on skills and not based on a quota. Is that debatable? Certainly, but there is no reason to villify anyone because of that opinion. You (as in any of you) could have asked Miranda for clarification, but you didn’t. Noone here did. Instead you immediately chose to take it as an insult to those who were invited. That is another example.
Hell, I gave you my honest impressions that I got from this thread, and just look at the reactions.
How can any of you say I lie when I claim that people with different opinions are treated hostile or are being villified?
For the record, I am not particularly fond of Abbie’s language in general. However, in this whole issue, I think she has made good points, and so did Miranda and Russel. I don’t have such a huge problem with ERV as all of you seem to have, though, since I’m among those who really don’t think gendered insults are that much worse than “normal” ones. That IS an opinion – one for which others have quite clearly been villified in this very thread, so how on earth can you claim otherwise.
But Harald is right, I should have just walked away and deleted the feed. I didn’t because I really liked it here, most of the time. I think you deserve at least an honest assessment. I’ll try to do better now and stop arguing on the internet.
Claudia –
That’s not what she said. She said she wouldn’t want to be invited to a conference “simply because” she had “the appropriate genitalia” – meaning, the women who were invited to the conference in question were invited simply because they had the appropriate genitalia.
Did she stop talking about Rebecca there?
***
So Claudia was perfectly fine with threads in which accomodationists faced harsh criticism and insults, and fine with the misogynistic sliming at ERV, but the responses on this thread to GT’s misrepresentations and attempted justification of the trashing of Watson have convinced her that she doesn’t want to be part of this community. Brilliant.
You won’t be missed, Claudia. Stick the flounce this time.
It should go down in history that Elevatorgate has done plenty to unveil not only sexists and misogynists among us, but also caused a huge number of self-pitying hypocrites to come to the surface. Or maybe this is some kind of mental condition? It goes like this:
Person A: I’m here to tell you what’s wrong with you, what you should do differently, why you’re a bad person, why I want to avoid you and why I think everyone else should as well.
Person B: You’re wrong, I have good reasons for my behavior and you arguments are disingenuous, lazy, and dishonest. Now take that into account or fuck off.
Person A: Ohmigod, how can you be so mean to me just because I have a different opinion? I’ve been nothing but nice! Oh, my poor, poor thin skin!
Claudia again
That’s bullshit, actually, and it’s exactly the trick that GT herself tried to pull – exaggerating the eeevil of the reaction to her comments. She did not face a lot of hostility. There were three dismissive comments before I engaged with her.
And it turned out that she was playing a game – saying things calculated to elicit a dismissive response and then pitching a fit about the expected response, and then running back to ERV to complain about the eeeeevil people here. You seem to be doing exactly the same thing, which probably explains the reaction you got.
At this point it’s hard to tell genuine interlocutors from ERV-based trolls. That’s a good deal more ERV’s fault than it is mine or ours. I’m sorry but I don’t believe your sad tale of being a long-time reader who is now heart-broken at the vileness here while remaining serenely unperturbed by anything at ERV. That doesn’t make sense, because anybody who liked this place as long as you say you’ve been around would not like the stuff at ERV. The two are incompatible.
Or, more succinctly, can you envision someone with substantive disagreements about Elevatorgate not possibly fitting into any or all of those categories?
Maybe a few weeks ago but since then, given the level of creepiness involved on the so called dissenters’ part, No. This incident made me realise that I care far more about feminism than any other substantive issue the gnu atheists have faced recently, even the spats with the accomodationists. I am taking the level of misogyny shown up by this incident pretty personally.
Too right, Tea (and well performed!). The self-pitying bit truly drives me up the wall.
I love the assumptions here. If a conference has all male speakers they must have been chosen simply on the basis of merit and having nothing to do with the fact that they’re men. Because everyone knows men get no benefit in our society from being men. No evidence of that happening – consciously or unconsciously – at all. But if a conference (including one on the subject of women in secularism featuring women who’ve written on the subject!) has a line-up of women speakers, they must have been chosen simply on the basis of their genitalia.
Claudia has commented here a couple of times before, last April, so she wasn’t being disingenuous about that. Once each in these two.
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/melting-melting-all-my-beautiful-wickedness/
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/what-is-this-high-noon/
GT/BluHarmony
For the record, few of the topics that I have engaged you on have been about the specifics of ‘Shaftgate’ or RW, although I have used specifics from that situation to illustrate the larger issue. That’s the whole crux right there, you see–at least for me. The specifics that fomented this shitstorm are, to me, less important than the significance of the actual shitstorm. It seems to reveal a surprising and pervasive sexism in the larger skeptical community, contrary to strenuous denials thereof by some.
I tried to look up ‘new wave feminism’ and didn’t really get a satisfying definition. The skeptical community certainly has a fair amount of overlap with the feminist community, but it’s obviously not a total overlap. So, I guess it’s fair to say that, much in the same way that you have become ‘wary of new age feminism’ during the EG fallout, I have become wary of hostility to women by some within the skeptical community. That doesn’t affect me personally so much, because I don’t participate in skeptical/atheist meetups or conventions or anything, but it affects me philosophically because sexism anywhere, in any community, is empirically bad. When I see it, I want to speak out against it and try to improve life for ALL women, everywhere. Seemingly little things like making people more aware of the origins and implications of the insults they choose can make a difference. Some people will be more receptive to this suggestion than others, obviously, but one has to start somewhere.
If there are a few more people in the world who think twice about using gender-specific slurs by the time my kids are old enough to hear/read such conversations, either due to my efforts, or (much more more likely) due to the efforts of people like Ophelia and PZ (and SC, and Jadehawk and many others), that’s a net Good.
If rude or insulting delivery of this message is off-putting, well, we’re back to tone over substance again. You have written a lot about how insults made you feel, which is valid and noted, but you have also claimed that there was no substantive argument alongside those insults, which is absolutely false. The argument should stand or fail on its own merits, regardless of how it’s adorned.
I thought you had already left.
I have already answered this question. It is not considered polite to ask questions that have already been answered.
What benefit of the doubt is there to give. There is little ambiguity or possibility for confusion is what she wrote.
If you have evidence to support that please provide it. It is considered impolite not to do so, not to mention dishonest.
Why should we seek clarification ? If Miranda cannot express herself clearly it is not for us to ask her what really meant. There is nothing in what was said that suggests she did not mean what she wrote.
Sorry, I simply do not believe this. Your whole attitude here does not strike me as being that of someone who is sincere. Not least because sincere people are not normally dishonest, and when they are they apologise.
We can say it based in the evidence of what you have written.
You and I clearly have different concepts of what good points are. For me, dismissing what happened to RW is not a good point.
Calling you an idiot just insults you. Calling you a cunt insults not only you, but women in general. This has been explained repeatedly, but it seems you still do not understand it. Try replacing a gendered insult with a racist one. Do you still think that such an insult is no worse than a normal one ?
Just leave, like you promised you would. I for one will not be sorry to see you leave. You have contributed nothing but dishonesty and fake concern.
Then I fall into those categories. I don’t subscribe to misogyny or dishonesty malevolently, nor do I personally believe it’s out of ignorance of feminism (I’ve lurked Shakesville for about a year, after the Penny Arcade debacle tore through the gaming community). I could of course be wrong about the latter point. I merely feel that I could be excluded from skeptical communities based on honest disagreement on a related issue. That may not be the case, but that is the impression I received. (Full disclosure: I was linked to this blog from ERV.)
I must admit I am at a loss to understand the objection to a conference on women in secularism that involves women.
After all, it is women involved in the secular movement who are going to know about being a women in the secular movement. Not much point in asking a man like me. What I know of the subject I have got second hand from women in the secular movement. When you are having a conference you want speakers who know about the subject of the conference.
I do not suppose Abbie Smith would complain a conference on HIV vaccines invited those involved in the field, or that Miranda Hale would complain that a conference on the harm done by exposure to Catholicism in childhood invited those with experience in the field.
Rlearn – I have no idea what you intended to convey in that comment.
My apologies. I failed to preview my comment ahead of time, and the white-space didn’t post, making my three paragraphs into one.
Mirax indicated that, in their opinion, there is no longer any disagreement over Elevatorgate that does not stem from misogyny or dishonesty. Therefore any action taken against dissenters is not because of dissent, but because of misogyny.
I was merely stating my impression that I could be removed from some skeptical communities because of a disagreement I don’t feel I am personally being stupid or dishonest about.
So do you subscribe to misogyny and dishonesty as a matter of convenience? As a matter of principle? (No, I don’t necessarily think you subscribe to misogyny and dishonesty. As Ophelia says more politely, your post doesn’t make any sense. Unless you are saying you’re a dishonest misogynist. Yes, you probably will be excluded from certain communities for that.)
I had to go back and read the earlier question that Rlearn posed to make sense out of that comment, but from that I deduce that Rlearn is saying that s/he does not consider him/herself a misogynist, or dishonest, or a supporter of misogyny or dishonesty, but that s/he disagrees about what is being characterized as misogyny or dishonesty, or support thereof. Moreover s/he interprets “our” “side” ‘s position to be that disagreement over this issue will lead to his/her ouster from the skeptical community.
??
So you, much like Bluharmony (sorry for getting your name wrong. added the ‘e’ a couple times), feel what’s been said here qualifies as abuse but not what’s been said at ERV. Why?
Even if gendered insults are no worse then neutral insults like idiot or fool (how telling someone they have a smelly snatch is on equal footing is beyond me), how would the discourse here be abusive while the discourse elsewhere kosher? I’m not trying to setup a ‘but they’re doing it too’ argument but I’m just trying to get a picture of what everyone but me seems to count as abuse.
oops, s/he turned up to explain her/himself. Sorry.
Rlearn, since you’re here, I don’t actually know what you mean by ‘removed from the skeptical community’–do you think your name is going to be red-flagged on Skeptical Inquirer subscription list, or the next TAM registration, or what?
crap, I made male assumptions in there and didn’t mean too. Please insert neutral pronouns everywhere you see ‘he’. in #587. Sorry
That seems pretty unlikely, Rlearn. Who is going to know your views on EG? Who in any particular skeptical community is going to recognize you? You’re pseudonymous.
No worries. You can relax.
I’m a he, for the record.
I don’t think I subscribe to them at all (I am sure there will be some disagreement about that). I do however disagree with the majority of commenters here about elevatorgate. Mirax indicates that, to them at least, this is de facto misogyny and dishonesty (And I infer grounds for censorship, though Mirax did not say that).
That’s more or less correct.
I haven’t commented on the verbal abuse being leveled at individuals, merely on the banning of members.
Before Mr Welch starts up the righteous fury, I’d like to point out I have never heard a Marine complain about gay marriage or gays in the military who was not specifically talking about gay men. The only mention of lesbians being kicked out that I’ve heard was from a SSgt wishing a pair would show up in his office so he could have them ‘dyke out’ to prove they were gay.
He is pseudonymous unless, like some idiots have said they might do, he turns up in a T-Shirt with a slogan that is derogatory towards Rebecca Watson. I would like to think anyone wearing such a T-Shirt would not be allowed to register.
To answer the more substantive point – I think it is possible to disagree about EG without animosity and the like – but I think it’s very very difficult right now to do so on the internet. I think ERV has so thoroughly poisoned the well that reasoned amicable disagreement has been pretty much made impossible. I know it’s worked that way for me – I simply don’t trust anyone who talks a particular line not to be bitching and cunting somewhere else while pretending to be reasonable here.
Julian,
Have you posted you last comment on the right blog ?
Right. Rlearn – I don’t care. I’m not interested in your worries about banning here. I’m being very heavy with the hammer on this thread because I refuse to let my place get clogged up with ERV’s fan club. That’s all there is to that. It’s not about dissent, it’s about that particular claque and the way they talk about women. Period. I don’t want a big discussion of that. I don’t want any ERV-based trolling.
To clarify, I mean that if I were to publicly voice disagreement about Elevatorgate, I could become a persona non grata on certain blogs that I lurk.
Now, granted, as a lurker, I don’t speak up much, but I do find the fact that I can offer input important, even if I do usually abstain.
@Matt Penfold
I’m having a bit of fun. Many of the posters (the one’s I am quoting at least) have been lurking in this thread. So in the effort of getting everyone to read what the other side is writing and bridge building and other good stuff, I’m trying to have a cross blog discussion.
Also,
bluharmony, you need not fear. Your friends have been taking screenshots of everything Ms Benson has written and have taken pains to make sure everyone’s comments (including the notorious salty cunt as Justicar put it) are immortalized on someone’s hard drive.
Rlearn – don’t worry about it. Also don’t try to get us to worry about it.
Speaking for myself – I read your blog and I dont read ERV’s(other than the few links I had to click to follow this event). It follows that i am not invested in ERV’s blog as much as I am in yours. Therefore I am also more likely to offer you some (unasked for, not needed) suggestions than I am to ERV.
I do think that most people have stopped giving each other the benefit of the doubt – which I dont think is a good thing – though i can certainly see some of the reasons behind it.
(and before you ask me why dont I tell ERV the same – the reason is I don’t care what they say or think or do – and I care even lesser after I have actually ERV’s posts).
Yes, because it’s very likely Ophelia will try to make this thread disappear down the memory hole. She’s long been known to be that kind of petty hypocrite you know. It’s a perfectly reasonable concern.
What do you think the odds are that you have something thoughtful and insightful to add to the thousands of comments at Pharyngula, here, and elsewhere, over several weeks? That your argument accurately represents the facts of the matter and is one which no one at this blog will have heard or addressed over dozens or hundreds of comments previously? Slim to none.
A lot of people here disagree one some aspect of the last few weeks. (Ms Benson, for example, doesn’t approve of how Ms Watson handled herself during that talk.) What we do agree on is that the sexist and woman hating language that’s become cool and totally with it to use, and how much of it has been hurled at Ms Watson, needs to stop.
SC, why do you hate America?
Rlearn–
Do you think that you need to accept, as part of your community, everyone who agrees on one point, no matter their behavior or opinions on other things? In this specific case–an atheist, skeptic community–do you think we should accept and not even challenge blatant racists as long as they don’t claim religious motivations for their racism? Do we welcome Ponzi schemers with open arms if they say “the people I conned shouldn’t have been so trusting”?
There are in fact opinions and behaviors to which my response is “you are not part of my community” (or, if too many other people are supporting those positions, “this is clearly not my community, alas” and I have to look elsewhere).
And if not, why is sexism different? Why should women have to tolerate that sort of thing on the grounds of community-building?
And you were linked here from ERV. That’s great. You’re not concerned about the misogynistic verbal abuse being heaped on Watson, but you’re terribly worried that your ability to post here at some unspecified time in the future might be affected by your hypothetical behavior here. Has it occcurred to you that this is thoughtless and selfish?
Deepak – yes, I agree with you. That says what I was trying to say to Rlearn, and says it much more economically. ERV has made it difficult to give people the benefit of the doubt. That’s very unfair, in a way – but on this subject, it’s how it now is.
(For the record, julian isn’t quite right – it’s not really true that I don’t approve of how RW handled herself in that talk [I don’t know which talk julian meant, but either one, or both]. I think there are reasonable criticisms to make, but that’s about it. In many ways I do approve of the way she handled herself.)
Good comment. I’m quite tired of people patronizingly saying that in stubbornly insisting on our right to be treated as human beings we’re pushing away our allies and are hurting our goals, and their doling out unsolicited advice. We’ve had more than enough of this dealing with people like Mooney. I choose with whom to ally and when. I choose my goals, which to prioritize and when, and how to go about it.
Minor diversion here:
Amazing! That was written by PZ a #297. Hey, PZ has a time machine! He can read posts before they have been posted!
Er no, the likely explanation is more mundane. Ophelia at #595:
and when Ophelia uses the hammer, all subsequent posts get renumbered (I think). Since people use the comment numbers to refer to other comments, maybe it would be better to remove just the contents of the offending posts, leaving a placeholder in their place? That way, comment numbering is preserved. Just a suggestion … What do you think, Ophelia?
@Ophelia
yes – that’s what i think too. however no one seems to be making them anymore :)!
I guess only time will fix this issue.
Ah yes. Good idea, Harald. I’ll do that.
Indeed – and speaking of that, Steve Zara was being disingenuous in saying he told me “Stop it” and not ERV or Miranda because he thinks I’m a bigger noise or some such damn fool thing. Nonsense; he was joking with Miranda about ERV’s ferocity at the same time.
Exactly; That is why I am not trying to rationalize my opinions in the public square. You all probably have heard everything I would say, and have already found it lacking (I presume). I merely wanted to address the “we’re better of without their kind rhetoric”.
I do think that anyone who shares the goals of furthering skeptical inquiry should be welcomed into the skeptic community. I’m willing to compartmentalize an individuals beliefs and support the ones that further my own goals, and denounce/ignore/whatever the ones that don’t. That’s a choice I make though, and I don’t fault anyone for disagreeing.
That’s an argument from silence. I haven’t commented on Rebecca Watson’s alleged verbal abuse of McGraw, or ERV’s on Ms. Benson or everyone on ERV’s at RW. I do however think that all of the involved parties are capable of handling themselves (Especially Ms. Watson), and that the comments on ERV can stand for what they are. Are they not vile until I denounce them?
Ms. Benson; I’m willing to take my leave on this matter if that is what you wish. My opinions on the matter are out now, and I am thankful you were receptive to them.
Rlearn, great, thanks. Comment on other subjects if you’re of a mind to.
I meant you being a bigger noise as a both a statement of fact, and a compliment! To be honest, I have little idea who ERV is. I have only ever looked at her page a few times. I know a bit more now, of course.
Anyway. If I have been an utter plonker, and please substitute any appropriate noun(s), then I accept it. I can be very naive about politics and social interactions. Sometimes I don’t even understand the phrases that some people use to describe how flawed I am.
But none of that matters. What matters to me, and I hope to others, is that there is a continuing Gnu Atheist movement that welcomes people who are considering the meaning and possibility of atheism. Part of there being a continuing Gnu Atheism movement is it should be possible for there to be meetings of Gnu Atheists, both online and in Real Life where people can disagree amicably.
How the situation has gone from us being (I had hoped) two people with mutual respect to this is a mystery to me. If that is my fault, then I happily accept that and apologise. I don’t mean that passively-aggressively – I accept I could well have put my foot in it. I’m sure there will be no shortage of people who will tell me where I went wrong!
But there has to be an end to all of this sometime. The Gnu Atheist community is too important to fracture like this, and, dammit, I don’t like losing even tentative friendships through rows.
So I’ll shut up about all this. Everywhere. And I’ll leave things saying that I respect you and I hope that we can return to at least an amicable situation sometime soon.
Very few people – the vast majority if not all of them not the ones attacking Watson but generally supportive of her – were ever making them. Russell Blackford (despite the fact that he hadn’t seen the talks in question) came in here from the start with guns blazing and a generous portion of hyperbole. I don’t think Abbie even needs to be discussed, and Miranda’s response to the Skepchick letters was absurd (and hypocritical).
There could have been a reasoned discussion of the responsibilities and expectations of older activists with regard to adult student activists and vice versa that didn’t treat anyone as a “youngling,” or about the etiquette of cross-platform debates in the community. I tried to have them, in fact, but the bashing of Watson was so intense and disproportionate, and it became so evident that these were not questions many people wanted to discuss more abstractly other than to stifle the discussion of sexism and attack Watson and Watson alone, that it was clear early on that this was futile. (Further, Russell Blackford didn’t see fit to answer my substantive responses.) Whatever reasoned criticisms people might have of Watson’s behavior – and reasoned ones would be minor – to think that the current context is an appropriate occasion to present them is being quite unreasonable. And, especially given what’s been going on at ERV, this ongoing desire to pick Watson apart is disturbing.
***
Rlearn, you seem very confused. In any case, the fact that you would put under the same umbrella “Rebecca Watson’s alleged verbal abuse of McGraw” and “everyone on ERV’s at RW” pretty much tells me everything I need to know about you with regard to this matter, even if you don’t have an agenda, which you may well have.
This isn’t really responsive. You were asked about specific examples: “In this specific case–an atheist, skeptic community–do you think we should accept and not even challenge blatant racists as long as they don’t claim religious motivations for their racism? Do we welcome Ponzi schemers with open arms if they say “the people I conned shouldn’t have been so trusting”?” Is your answer Yes? I am not willing to ignore or tolerate sexism and misogyny (or racism or homophobia or a basic lack of decency…) in a movement in order to be part of it. I’m not willing to tolerate the smearing of a woman for speaking out. At all. And people who are willing to engage in, tolerate, or defend this are not my allies. Being a human being and a feminist is not secondary to being an atheist or skeptic for me.
uh… d’uh? of course she did, and just like many others, she did it in a way that insulted those that were chosen. It’s the same crap as “well, Sotomayor only got as far as she did because of affirmative action”; it’s insulting, and it pretends that without quotas/affirmative action, people get chosen on skills (and just happen to be predominantly white/male; I guess because whites/men are more skilled at everything?). Which is sheer dishonesty, in the face of so much data suggesting that there’s a lot of (subconsious) bias in selection processes all over the Western world.
No, that’s actually not an opinion, but either denial or ignorance of evidence. Slurs have very specific, documented effects on people. a quick sample:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3131636v1461137/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h4314k3565440l68/
There isn’t one, she’s constantly making up new terms. Yesterday it was “neo-feminism”
Silly Matt; don’t you know that according to “equity feminism”, the experiences of men and women are the same, so there’s nothing about which women could speak better than men, and thus inviting a bunch of women to speak about women’s experience in skepticism means they were selected because of their genitalia, not because of their unique experiences and the work they’ve done on the subject.
Russell Blackford (despite the fact that he hadn’t seen the talks in question) came in here from the start with guns blazing and a generous portion of hyperbole. I don’t think Abbie even needs to be discussed, and Miranda’s response to the Skepchick letters was absurd (and hypocritical).
Furthermore, this group (including Jerry Coyne) have unleashed or looked on the torrent of hatred that’s been spewed at Watson, women, and feminists and treated this like it’s a big joke. They’ve been joking about it. At this point, frankly, I don’t care to hear their thoughts on the matter.
oh yeah, and this one:
http://psp.sagepub.com/content/37/2/151.abstract
Steve you could at least have been honest. You’re a partisan of Miranda’s. You could (and should) have said as much.
Plus, given that, you had no business telling me “Stop it.” I’ve already had Miranda’s male partisans telling me what to do; I do not want any more of it.
I frankly think Miranda has a lot of people convinced that she’s a delicate flower – but she cheers on Abbie as the “honey badger” that she (Miranda) can’t bring herself to be. Well fuck that. Abbie the “honey badger” calls women fucking bitch and smelly snatch. That’s not something to cheer on.
Or, as Salty points out, to joke about. Do they make hahaha oh that’s so funny jokes about epithets thrown at Jews? No. At black people? No. At indigenous people, immigrants, Muslims, Sikhs? No. But women? Oh hey, that’s totally different.
Ophelia – I’m not a partisan of anyone. I am friends with Miranda. I had hoped I was friendly with you. I only supported Miranda because she was the subject of a post on this significant site which ended ‘fuck you’ (at least for a while). If you had been the subject of such a post and you had said you were puzzled and shocked, I would have defended you in the same way, at least until or unless you had told me you didn’t want that.
I asked you if you could not post ‘fuck you’ posts because I think you are both an important commentator and influential in a way that (to be blunt) Miranda and ERV aren’t. If that was inappropriate, sorry.
I have supported what you have said against ERV’s use of language. From what I have seen (a glimpse) that use of language was crass and silly even if we ignore the offensiveness. I have admired your vigorous campaigns against such stupid use of language on RD.net, in the face of some disgusting abuse.
I happen to disagree with Miranda on the issue of the conference. But for goodness sake, can’t we rationalists argue rationally? This is not a plea for anyone to shut up, but to show others that we can argue with each other rationally, cos that’s what we do.
I know this is probably a waste of time, but someone has to make the first move sometime, as this all has to end sometime, surely?
Best wishes anyway.
Why don’t you ASK MIRANDA to extend an olive branch Steve? Jeezis, are you really this obtuse?
Steve, you have been asked this repeatedly and somehow managed to write tons of posts without answering it: Did you tell Ms. Hale you disagreed with her about the CFI Women’s Conference and/or the use of gendered insults?
Nod once if yes, twice if no.
Well, PZ, considering the material in question here, shovels seem to be the appropriate tool, yes?
BTW, sorry for being such a slow reader; I can write much faster than this. (Another P. Simon reference;)
Also, may I add my admiration for the folks who have the endurance to keep up with this deplorable debate. Specifically, Ms Benson, Jadehawk, SC, Josh, skepticlawyer (not to mention a number of other notable contributors, such as PZ). In truth, I think it does great service to humanity to collect garbage in a civilized fashion. Though bereft of academical scalps, I don’t suppose that amounts to a heap of ants to some of the poseurs acting under false flag.
Oh and Steve, screw your hat on a donkey.
@Steve Zara The “Atheist movement” is not going to shatter, so stop worrying yourself.
@MartinM Thank you for posting about the elevator thing. It was bugging me that no one was pointing out that their numbers were wrong.
Rrr: we lawyers collate rubbish so other people don’t have to :)
Yes.
Josh Slocum
August 8, 2011 at 12:52 pm
> Why don’t you ASK MIRANDA to extend an olive branch Steve? Jeezis, are you really this obtuse?
She has. Read her blog. The “barmaids” post.
“I asked you if you could not post ‘fuck you’ posts because I think you are both an important commentator and influential in a way that (to be blunt) Miranda and ERV aren’t. If that was inappropriate, sorry.”
I am new to this blog and have no idea who this tiresome man is. Ophelia removed the “fuck you” after thinking better of it – how long do you have to hammer on it? Thinking better of impulsive actions is what rational people do. Erecting monuments to irrational impulses is what irrational people do.
OK, so I hope I have made at least some things clear. I disagree with Miranda. I have said so. I have posted that on her blog. Miranda has posted up an explanation, an olive branch. On her blog. I have said that I mostly agree with Ophelia, except for the “fuck you” aspects of communication. I have no clue about ERV, apart from her unpleasant use of language, which I certainly don’t support.
There should now be a chance for people who should be allies to try and re-establish civilized communication. At least I hope so.
It isn’t just my concern that the Gnu movement may be threatened; if it was I would shut up. But it isn’t just my concern.
Best wishes.
Where do you get off suggesting that Ophelia isn’t arguing rationally? She responded rationally to Hale’s words and then (initially) added a “Fuck you.” Hard as this may be for you to believe, that doesn’t actually cancel out the rationality.
Publicly? Do you have a link? In contrast, did you take your own advice and contact Ophelia privately before posting on this thread?
Go Ophelia!
I tripped myself up a few weeks ago because I thought a lot of Miranda and wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt. But you lay down with dogs, you get fleas. She’s only a delicate flower when she get the spotlight put upon her. Otherwise, she’s quite happy to wallow in the whatever.
I’ve stopped looking at FB because Russell was last check making silly coffee comments and Miranda was getting all het up about how people were being nasty to her and how she’d have to learn to ignore it all the while lapping up the glory of being a gender traitor (still not sure what that is, ignoramus that I am). Fuck it, FB’s not worth the trouble.
I’ve haven’t taken that much notice of SC before now, but I’ve got a growing respect for her. Especially the ability to say sorry or my bad. Formidable is a word that springs to mind. I think most commenters here like Josh, Mirax and crew have been pretty decent. The shit that has been thrown from the ERV camp, and the trolling, is enough to make you give up.
The person I’ve the most respect for is Ophelia, of course. I’d have lost my shit ages ago and abused all and sundry.
Oh well, here ends my pointless comment.
Here’s Miranda’s “olive branch”, so no one else has to try to find it. Have to run, may have time later for a comment on it.
@SC
yes I agree – im conflicted over what happened myself. I can certainly see value in naming people and being explicit as RW did – but I wouldn’t want to find myself in the position that Stef McGraw did – I would have found it intimidating – and I would probably think twice before saying anything the next time. I dont think that was RW’s intent and I cannot see if I had RW’s views how I would have been able to frame it better.
Which essentially works out to i’m conflicted.
it would have been nice to have some reasoned discussion here – but it so quickly deteriorated into what it did.
And because someone will remark on it — the scare quotes are for the absence of part of the metaphor. One can’t be said to have extended an olive branch if they haven’t budged an inch towards the other party’s territory, but stayed firmly in their own.
Not only that, MyaR, it’s excessively verbose, convoluted, and self-admiring. Proclaiming that you are “always civil” and “never vicious” over and over and over is sure sign that you’re. . .not a very nice person but you play one on the Internet.
Points 2) and 3) really only make sense if one believes that there aren’t enough women of merit to fill a conference roster. They also appear to be the same point worded in slightly different ways.
Well. OK, then.
@skepticlawyer: And hard work it must be too! Much respect due. Us garbage producers do owe you. Myself not excluded.
Again, apologies if I collate to teh party … ;-)
What I’d like to know is why Miranda felt the need to tell us how she would have felt if she were invited to a conference she hasn’t been invited to and, as she tells us now, her hypothetical reaction isn’t supposed to inform us one bit about how she thinks actual invitees are supposed to feel about it. Why would anyone, including herself, be interested in such pointless hypotheticals?
It’s like watching Halle Berry get an Oscar and commenting that “I would have hated to get an Oscar only because I’m black,” then claiming that I was only talking about *myself* and was by no means trying to convey that the reason why Berry got an Oscar has anything to do with her race.
Olive branch my ass.
That was not much of an olive branch. Nor did it make sense. She would worry if she were invited to a women’s conference that she was being asked because she’s a woman, and wouldn’t be good enough for some hypothetical conference on a completely different subject? She really meant that she’s not interested in a women’s conference at all? Who cares? So don’t attend.
And on and on. As others have pointed out, the problem is that no amount of verbiage gets around the fact that her “I would hate” assumes the women asked would have reason to feel insecure about their merits, when it’s clear that they were asked to speak based on who they are and what they’ve done relevant to the issue. They don’t “know” they’ve been invited simply on the basis of their genitalia and not on the basis of what they do/write – it’s plain that they haven’t – and it’s remarkable to suggest that they would worry that they were being preference instead of men better qualified to speak on women in secularism. There’s no way that assumption isn’t at the basis of her statement, and a real apology would acknowledge that.
Then she pouts about Ophelia’s referring to it in her post, calling it unfair, even though Ophelia’s one of the women she insulted. This on the basis that it was just a “silly” blog comment. She really seems more interested in eliciting sympathy than in being taken seriously as a writer.
And it appears, Steve, that you disagreed with her about the conference – I didn’t see anything about ERV – but most of your criticism was aimed not at her but at Ophelia, with not a remark about how her statement had been thoughtlessly insulting to Ophelia.
Exactly, Tea. And she’s dissembling like mad about it.
In regards to Miranda’s “olive branch,” why would the fact that it’s a women’s only conference make it more likely that someone would be asked to speak *only* because they were female? Does she feel that the pool of women speakers is not wide enough to have more than enough qualified women? Couldn’t the same objection be raised in conferences where the speakers have historically been nearly all men and that due to trying to bring more women in, they could grab whoever is handy? I’m not saying that’s the case, but couldn’t the same concern be there, if she actually has such a concern? It really makes no sense unless she has a fairly low opinion of prominent female skeptics and atheists.
Oh, and yeah, it’s also not much of an olive branch when you conspicuously avoid naming the person and then cry about how awfully mean it was to have your comments “dissected” on a. . a. . blog.
Places one is not allowed to discuss the comments of others:
* Conferences
* Blog posts
* Anywhere, ever
Miranda:
Oh, there’s plenty you can do. The first step is to be honest, especially because you’re crap at making up excuses.
MartinM – oh lord, you cracked me up. “Places where” indeed!
I just want to mention something about this. Notice that the next three words of what you quoted were “and vice versa.” I almost itslicized them, but took a chance. You didn’t quote them or refer to either Stef McGraw’s actions in response to Watson’s video or how reading her response to those 30 seconds of video might have affected Rebecca Watson. These criticisms always seem to start and end with McGraw’s experience at the talk (and I’ve said more than once that while I have some criticisms of her I can see how that was thoroughly unpleasant), without reference to her own actions before or after or to principles of public debate. I think a discussion of the larger questions could certainly happen, though not in the midst of this, but if this were discussed it has to be fully.
But I do hope that she does continue to be outspoken.
Abso-fucking-lutely-brilliant!
Alright everyone, move on please. Nothing more to see here, there’s a good’un. Chop chop already, dontcha have a home to go to?
And now for the late news: The Pope has not yet resigned, Vatican officials let it be known recently, … … … …
Also noted is the fact that Miranda’s “olive branch” is buried in the comments of a long thread – which contradicts Miranda’s own statement that
In other words, Miranda, you’re going to whine about others [Ophelia] reading and responding to your “short silly comments” in a long thread – but you’re going to bury your supposed apology to everyone you offended in a long silly comment in a long thread – and you’re expecting everyone to read this apology as valid.
Jesus, woman, get your courage up and make the public apology (and “olive branch” offering”) the top subject of your next blog post. Don’t wimp out, you little darling, don’t bury it 95 comments down and then hypocritically expect others to take one of your silly comments seriously while giving you a free pass on the other of your silly comments.
No shit, Sherlock. There are “some” who doubt your sincerity here.
@SC
it wasnt intentional , but Im assuming that there isn’t anything wrong in criticising older or student activists on a blog post, even if one of the parties happens to be mistaken.
Im not sure what you are trying to imply here – unless you feel that McGraw behaved badly towards RW. – in which case what you are referring to?
if you are trying to point out that people who came out in support of McGraw said some fairly nasty things about RW – well no argument there – i just dont see anything worthy of debate (atleast for me) in that topic – it’s black and white.
Thank you, Rrr and Brian. That’s very nice of you to say.
Just not as “the focal point of a post on a popular blog”, it would seem.
Do let everyone know when you feel ready to be judged on your merit, Miranda.
Deepak:
Well, I can’t speak for SC, but you do realize that Watson was in fact reacting to something McGraw said about her before the talk? She dismissed Watson’s experience, called her argument hypocritical, and implied that she’s not a “real feminist” and is not concerned with “gender equality”.
You’re most welcome. Praise very much deserved. Sorry, got to goto shuteyes mode now.
I’ve discussed my criticisms of McGraw’s post in some depth on one of the earlier threads here; I don’t feel like going in search of it, but it shouldn’t be too hard to find. In addition to the content of the post itself, I didn’t understand her disappointed expectation to talk with Watson about it privately at the conference the next day, after making that post. If you make a public comment, I think you should expect a public response, or at least not be angry at receiving one. I also didn’t like the fact that her response to Watson’s talk focused solely on her experience and not at all on the substantive questions (including the sorts of responses women often receive when they talk about the category of experiences Watson did, of which her own to Watson was an example). I thought her statement that she wouldn’t have minded had Watson responded on her multi-thousand reader public blog rather than in front of 100 people was strange, and I didn’t like or appreciate her insistence that she couldn’t respond…in the course of responding.
I’m answering your questions, but I really have no interest in criticizing McGraw, but she’s not a passive child in this and I think adults in the public sphere should be treated as adults. I would much prefer that the question be discussed in the abstract. The thing is, I think a lot of the people – not you – claiming to want to discuss it care little about anything other than patronizingly “protecting” McGraw by savaging Watson.
@Tea
And was in turn responded to as ignorant , so what? At no point have I implied that RW and SMG cant criticise each other using fairly harsh terms – nor am i commenting on who is right(which for the record is RW).
And she started it is fairly unimpressive outside of kindergarten.
So is saying that denying any sexual proposition will lead to the extinction of humanity.
Deepak, I wasn’t implying any of those things. I was just responding to your “unless you feel that McGraw behaved badly towards RW. – in which case what you are referring to?”.
I’m at the university library on one of the guest computers, which don’t allow access to most sites, so I can’t read Miranda’s olive branch. I’ll read it (and perhaps comment) in an hour or two.
It doesn’t sound very promising. The fuss about being dissected in a blog post – did she not notice that that part was an afterthought? The post was about Abbie’s generous promise to attack the women in secularism conference; I updated it after I saw Miranda’s comment. What do you expect? The poisonous cabal of woman-haters at ERV and at Miranda’s have created an atmosphere in which two women rush to piss on a conference of that kind – it’s pathetic and disgusting.
Steve @ 621
No you didn’t. You didn’t ask if I could anything; you told. You gave me an order. See # 59 – you said “Stop it.”
It’s not even as if we’re on such matey terms that that would be reasonable as a friendly nudge. I remember some past arguments with you at RDF, and that’s about it. I don’t consider you such a close buddy that you get to give me some tough love now and then.
Deepak Shetty, what is your argument about ” the responsibilities and expectations of older activists with regard to adult student activists and vice versa that didn’t treat anyone as a ‘youngling’, or about the etiquette of cross-platform debates in the community”? Is it something other than that you wouldn’t have liked being criticized in that way at that speech? Because I doubt anyone would, but it was in response to a public criticism which is reasonably expected to receive a public response amongst adults (as Ophelia’s post was in response to a public insult).
Is there some equation in which we have to plug in values for: adult age, gender, leadership position, blog traffic, attractiveness, platform, time spent thinking about or writing one’s criticism, silliness of the criticism, and so on? Do some people get to harshly criticize and insult others without fear of a public response? Would that be good for public debate?
Ophelia — don’t forget the sessions at Blackford’s blog, where you and I were the only women and the enlightened Olympians (including Stangroom and Zara) told us shrill, humorless feminists why opposing burqas and polygyny poses a danger to democracy.
@Sc
Sorry I still dont get it. You seem to agree that SMG was put in an unpleasant position . But Im not sure how the vice versa holds.
Note that this has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong.
I find nothing wrong in exchanging criticisms via a blog – but to be put on the spot in a conference would be troubling to me. I can understand easily why SMG would say she would have no problem being criticized in a more popular blog than in public, in person. I can easily see why this would be intimidating. But I also think that RW can and should be able to criticise things that she sees as troublesome in a conference and that she has to name names to be precise. I make some allowances for SMG’s age and I subtract some for the fact that she is an activist and must develop a thicker skin.
I dont see what SMG did can be considered intimidating to RW – hence I don’t understand the vice versa part of your comment .
The behavior of the commenters who attempted to defend SMG is a totally different matter and I believe the vice versa part of your statement wasnt intended to point to them.
To those of you doubting Miranda’s sincerity — I don’t think she’s insincere. In fact, I think she’s utterly and completely sincere in her notpology. It was, after all, just a silly blog comment. Certainly nothing that should’ve been noted, much less responded to. It was just so silly and casual.
Something to, perhaps, stop and think about. What surfaced in that “silly and casual” comment, tossed off without much thought? I’m not implying something pseudo-Freudian, but rather that it takes actual conscious work to not be sexist.
Athena, yikes, I have forgotten that, at least the details of it. (I doubt that Stangroom took part. He never thought much of Blackford, and then, there was that book we were writing – it opposes burqas and polygyny!)
Oh yes, here it is.
It was after you had written and published the book. Stangroom took part, all right, to tell me that I should “chill” and appreciate his humor.
No Stangroom there. Lots of J J Ramsey though; maybe you were thinking of him.
That ain’t no olive branch.
And taking underhanded potshots about blogging about a comment seals the deal as far as sincerity goes.
@Deepak Shetty Being told your ignorant of something is not an insult, especially when your written statements clearly show you actually are ignorant on what you were called on.
You seem to be on RWs side in this, yet you seem to want to add a small “but” in there. The thing is there is no “but” to add. Stef is a fully grown adult, she made a rather ignorant post about a speaker that was coming to speak before her group, a post which I might add which was either deliberately deceptive or shows someone with a complete lack of common sense. She knew RW would see the post so why would she be surprised to see it mentioned?
That’s surprising. It’s fairly understandable to not see it if you’re not a woman, but to have someone publicly respond the way McGraw did to Watson’s brief account of her experience is something women have to face on a regular basis, and it’s particularly upsetting coming from another woman. Again, I’ve described this in previous posts, so if you’re interested you can find them (or I might check later). It’s extremely unpleasant, and intimidating (though in a completely different sense). I don’t think it was morally wrong (or that Watson’s response was), but I think it would certainly have been more polite to talk with Watson about it the next day at the conference. I mean, can anyone argue that it wouldn’t?
But you’re missing the point of the vice versa. It wasn’t about whether the two had experiences that were equally unpleasant or intimidating or whatever, but abstract – whether adult students have, in your view, responsibilities and appropriate expectations with regard to older and more established people, assuming they’ll be treated as adults even if this means harshly, or whether they should get special treatment, expecting to choose the circumstances of the response to their public criticisms.
And to many people. I would hate it, but I would probably hate other venues more. So you do think people should never cross platforms in this particular direction, or is there some sort of age maximum younger than which you should be able to choose the circumstances in which people reply to your public criticisms of them?
Re: Miranda’s “olive branch”–the word “belabored” comes to mind.
This is a thoughtful observation.
I wouldn’t care if someone attacked me at a conference, in my presence. I’m used to oral argument in court, where one makes one’s case with clarity and precision or it gets chopped into matchwood (always politely, of course). By contrast, I would be very annoyed if someone did it to me behind my back. In fact, the idea of someone doing so (either via a blog, or through private correspondence) makes me angry just at the thought of it.
Brian, I don’t think it’s pointless. You, and Rrr a few posts earlier, said what I’ve been thinking for some time now. We can’t be the only ones. I’m mostly on the sidelines here, but if it helps the front line to know I admire the hell out of them and do what I can with my limited (metaphoric) weapons, well, I do.
@SC
I am not . fair point . Ill need to reread some of the stuff in this context.
this view has a little bit of argument from authority that makes me uncomfortable – though ill concede the broad point. I misinterpreted the vice-versa – I see what you are trying to say.
No. Hence the conflict.
If I discount every thing else that followed , and restrict myself to RW and SMG – i have to answer this with what was gained and what was lost by RW or SMG doing what they did and Im still working through that.
Do you think age isn’t a factor? As soon as someone becomes a legal adult , all’s fair?
@David
Never said it was. neither SMG nor RW are at fault here. Dont let your bias as to who you think is right get in the way of that conclusion.
She knew RW would see the post so why would she be surprised to see it mentioned
Again picture yourself in SMG’s position , believe you have the same views as hers and think why she would have found this problematic. Note that SMG herself said she wouldnt have a problem with criticism on a blog. Now given that we agree that RW can address such topics in a conference and naming names is good, come up with a better way to handle this.
If you want to see this incident in black and white – that all the problem is SMG’s go ahead, there is no need to carry on this conversation with me. As someone said earlier in the thread(I think it was SC), it is unlikely I have anything new to say that hasnt already been said.
Aw, thanks, Rrr and Brian and Stacy.
Ha! That’s an olive branch?!
Sheesh. Steve Zara thinks that’s an olive branch. Oy.
I wonder if any of these people who are so frightfully shocked that all the speakers at the conference are women are ever frightfully shocked when all the speakers at other conferences are men. It’s not as if that never happens.
Ah, but those conferences don’t have a policy of inviting only male speakers. They just happen to do it.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. I think you’re misunderstanding me.
Correct. I think adults should be treated as adults when they’re engaging in public debate. I think this is in the best interest of everyone involved and in the best interest of public debate. I also can’t imagine a practical approach that would consider age as a factor in any nonarbitrary or functional way.
Not “all.” What’s fair for everyone is the same. Adults should feel free to make public criticisms, but they should do so with the expectation that they’ll receive public criticism in the venue of the criticized’s choice. People can talk about when platforms should be crossed, but I think what’s happened in this case is that ridiculous “rules” are being cobbled together not on the basis of general principles but one the basis of “everything Rebecca Watson did is horrible.” If you think young people (how young, I don’t know) should receive special treatment with regard to the public criticisms they make (I don’t think they never should receive special treatment in any sphere), I think you should have to make a case for that.
Well, that’s what happens when it’s merit-based. A woman-heavy list is obviously genital-based.
Presumably why some people are so concerned with the merits of other people’s genitals.
Snorfle. . teeeheheh. Gah, it really is the living end, innit?
What I wonder is how anyone with any sense (like Sigmund for instance) can buy Miranda’s explanation that she was just making a personal observation. That doesn’t make any sense. It would make sense only if she had been talking about something that had nothing to do with the CFI conference. As it is, it’s just meaningless.
If things had been different for the past month, I could buy that it was just clumsy, and inadvertently insulting. Since they haven’t, I don’t buy that for a second. I think she was tossing a bone to the Justicar Gang and their beloved honey badger Abbie.
Oooh ya, it’s going to be totes Judy Chicago at that conference. Genitals on the table, everybody!
Godalmighty. It’s even more ridiculous than I thought.
Steve Zara:
Here’s what he means by “disagreeing with Miranda” and saying so on her blog:
He disagrees with her lack of interest in “participating in any conference that limits participation to women” – and with me for arguing with her and throwing vitriol at her.
Steve, I hate to tell you, but that wasn’t what I meant when I said “why are you telling me this, why don’t you tell Miranda?”! I didn’t mean “why don’t you tell Miranda why I’m so horrible?”
God, he’s hilarious.
@SC
There we go again. Why do you feel the need to add this when you are responding to me – unless you want to imply that Im doing the same.
In my professional work , I sometimes have to review designs of other people in front of an audience. I make a distinction on how harsh I might be depending on the experience of the person. Also motivation of that person matters. I’m doing the same here.
The question of how young is arbitrary – There is no fixed value and I might give you two different answers on two different days.
(I don’t think they never should receive special treatment in any sphere),
I’ve treated Walton (who started posting at Pharyngula when he was 19 and a Right ass :) and now has vastly changed politics, is a tremendous debater, and is getting an LLM at Harvard!) the same as I do everyone else arguing on the blogs. It was very different from how I treat my students. (Come to think of it, though, that relationship is of course fundamentally different, but if I had to move in either direction, it would be toward treating my students more like I do people online rather than the reverse.)
Taking a break from ERV.
Can someone explain to me why specifically targeting the oppressed or under represented when the goal is to get them more involved or expose whatever suffering they feel is a bad thing? I get Dr, Hale was just expressing her personal preference and that being a member of a disenfranchised group is no guarantee you’ll have that groups interest at heart but how does that make sense? You obviously want the perspective of individuals in said group otherwise you wouldn’t care if they were underrepresented, would you?
At this point, I kind of think you are.
Well, designs aren’t public criticisms, and I don’t know the context, but I don’t support this as a policy, and I don’t think it helps people to grow as designers. I would want the same honest criticism regardless of my level of experience, but I wouldn’t want criticism of anyone’s art to be excessively harsh. I want people whose opinions I respect to like my poems (writing one now!) and photos, and I certainly don’t want them to go out of their way to bash them, but I want honesty more than anything.
Then how does this work as a policy?
@Ophelia
Ha!. Yes i couldn’t come up with a charitable explanation either. given the context and the response , it makes no sense. I could understand a general anti-affirmative stance but i don’t understand whats being said.
Is she?
I dunno, it’s what I was told at ERV. Justicar was making a big issue out of it. Figured it didn’t particularly matter, so I used it.
It just doesn’t as anything other than how you read it. There’s no “generous” alternative reading that I can see that makes any sense at all.
The CV on Miranda’s website, current as of mid-June 2011, says that she has a B.A. and an M.A. I think Justicar is mistaken.
Justicar does appear to be kicking up a bit of a fuss about it. If she has earned the title, I’m more than happy to call her Dr. Hale. In any case, Justicar can refer to me henceforth as Dr. SC – it’s a well-earned title, as he says.
Though actually I don’t know that I’ve ever called her “Ms. Hale” anyway. I’ve called her Hale or Miranda, the same as I’ve referred to others, regardless of academic titles or gender, and the same way I just use people’s nyms. So I probably wouldn’t call her Dr. Hale generally.
I’m shocked. Really.
You get called Dr. if you have a doctorate (PhD, MD, JD) not a Master’s. According to Ms. Hale’s profile, she has an MA. So prefacing her name with Dr. is incorrect.
I think Justicar’s probably confused by the fact that she teaches at a community college. You don’t have to have a PhD for that, and I taught at three schools before I got my doctorate. This is in no way a swipe at professors who don’t have doctorates or who teach at community colleges. In no way. And she could have a doctorate for all I know – it just can’t be assumed from her teaching at a college.
Deepak,
Taking SMG’s views at face value, based on her utterances before and after the leadership conference, I am distinctly unimpressed. Yeah she is a young adult but I have met so many outstanding and passionate young adults who can more than hold their own that this furore on behalf of SMG’s putative embarassment is very hard to get behind. If I were SMG, I would be even more appalled at the nastiness that has been unleashed in my name, and said something as an adult and a prospective leader. It is a pity that SMG seems to have not graspedor even challenged Watson’s substantive point – sexism at the heart of the movement itself – and concentrated just on her own feelings. There’s been a pattern of that kind of selective thinskinnedness ( on the part of the SMG partisans) in this fiasco.
With no slight intended to the PhDs among us, I find it an annoying affectation when those other than physicians insist on being referred to as “Dr.” in almost all contexts. Notice that I’m not saying that it’s inappropriate in the academy and in publications. Of course it is.
It’s equally irksome when blog commenters use it toward the blog host-it’s just odd and out of place on a blog, and I don’t know any PhD bloggers who’d even want commenters to say, “Oh yes, Dr. Squeebottom.” Even if Miranda Hale did have such a title, it would be absurd to the point of cringemaking to refer to her—within comments on blogs having nothing to do with her field—as “Dr. Hale.”
For what it’s worth, I find the New York Times’ fetishistic clinging to honorifics cloying too.
SC,
Yes but intellectual snobbery has been such a distinctive feature at that place! They might have started handing out their own honorary doctorates.
Hell, I’ve known lecturers at top tier British universities who never bothered getting doctorates.
I would never expect to be called that in the vast majority of contexts. But I would use it in most contexts in which it’s a choice between that and “Ms.” (Never in any in which I might be expected to save lives – “There’s a doctor on the passenger log! This man’s having a heart attack!”) That probably has something to do with being a woman, too. Also, a doctorate is a hard-earned degree, and I suspect medical school would’ve been much easier.
:)
It wouldn’t if people were referring to “Dr. Coyne,” “Dr. Blackford,” and “Dr. Myers” but to her as “Ms.” But I don’t think that’s the case, and I don’t think anyone referring to her as Ms. Hale thinks she has a doctorate and is disrespecting her. Consistency is key, and I’m on the side of consistent informality and non-titling.
Mis.D. – Doctor of Misogyny.
It also helps to say calmly and slowly, “My name is Dr. Andreadis,” when someone is screaming at you, “Speak English? Huh? Huh? You unnerstan’ what I’m sayin’ to ya?” because you’re dark and speak all your languages with an accent.
Agreed about consistency, SC. In fact it was Jerry Coyne I was thinking of when writing about blog commenters seeming all treacly by referring to the host as “Dr.”
Mind, I’m not against formality on other contexts, and sometimes I downright resent informality. When I call people on the phone for my work, I always address them as Mr./Ms. unless I know them or am invited to do otherwise. I find it interesting how many very elderly people do not return the favor. When they call me “Josh” I’m not really that bothered, cuz I’m not stuffy. But it does make you wonder why they operate with such automatic asymmetry. Do I not sound old enough to deserve “Mr”, even though I’m the expert and organizational director they’re calling?
I very much don’t appreciate bank clerks and doctor’s office receptionists I don’t know calling me by my first name the first time we speak. Then again, I think it’s demeaning to service staff of all stripes to have to wear their first names on a badge inviting all and sundry to use it!
Well, that’s enough of that tour of my idiosyncratic preferences!
Holy shit that’s funny. Stolen.
Athena-LOL. . I can just hear you saying that and in just what tone! Do you get that a lot? Do you speak with a Greek inflection to your English?
Yes, Miranda Celeste Hale has her CV online. She has a Master’s degree in English Literature. I haven’t seen anyone dissing her degree, and I sure wouldn’t; if the ERV crew were consistent, though, they’d be horrified that someone without science credentials writes about science and skepticism.
Meanwhile, I have a Ph.D., and I don’t see them showing the deference due my well-earned title. It’s even that holy of holies, a science degree!
I used to get it a lot more when I was younger, Josh. For one thing, now my passport states that I’m a professor. People know I’m not US-born when I speak — except it’s not an obvious Greek accent. I’ve been taken for Russian, Brazilian, Spanish, Israeli… and people get madder when they can’t place the accent.
:)
My transition from undergrad to grad school – “Dr. X” to “Paul” – was embarrassing and painful. It’s still hard for me to call friends of my parents and parents of my friends by their first names, even when they tell me to.
http://www.davinciinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/burningbridge.jpg
This whole thing is just so, so depressing. All, barring a very few, utterly determined to see the very worst in their opponents, to ignore the good and run with the absolute worst interpretation of every statement.
This is not skepticism.
How odd, Athena, that people should get mad when they can’t guess your accent (which they shouldn’t be trying to do in front of you anyway-how rude!). I enjoy trying to puzzle out people’s accents to see how good I am, especially people interviewed on NPR. When I was really young, I was so ignorant I couldn’t tell an English accent from an Australian one (yeah, I know).
Tristan, if you meant that as a criticism of people here, it’s better to be direct about it. Leaving a comment like that gives the appearance of being passive-aggressive, which I’m sure you didn’t mean to do.
I meant that as a criticism of everyone involved (with the aforementioned few exceptions). Posting it here seems appropriate, since this seems to be where the most people are following.
I point to Graspedor. I point to nuclear waste. That’s all.
He’s smarter than you!
See, that’s no good. Because you didn’t name the exceptions, you leave everyone to suppose you’ve put them all on the same level. Come on, you see how provocative this is, yes? Please don’t.
Please, enlighten us, oh sceptical one; what precisely is the best interpretation of calling someone a fucking bitch with a smelly snatch?
So many sound Russian to me. I don’t know why.
Funny. I couldn’t read the title of Ophelia’s post Crazy American Bitches without hearing it in a Hollywood Russian accent. Got way too much laughter out of such thin gruel.
Good. Don’t you think a little soul-searching is exactly what’s required here? If I do name names, then all that’ll happen is that those people will get an excuse to preen, while a bunch of others will go haring off to find quotes which can be interpreted (justifiably or otherwise) as counter-examples.
Bugger that for a game of darts. I’m not planning on getting involved in an argument. Just registering my disgust with the whole thing.
Piss off Tristan. Typical passive aggressive bullshit.
You just want to provoke one without paying the consequences. Go vent your spleen to your diary.
Not really, Josh: bullies like to peg others instantly, so that they can think of ways to keep them “in their place”. They get all discombobulated when they have to shift mental gears. As I told someone who tried this tactic on me in another context, “It must be disorienting to discover that the beggar you tried to kick turned out be Haroun al-Rashid in disguise.”
Great – now I’m hearing it. I saw an ad a few hours ago for a new reality show called Russian Dolls. Erm.
Yeah, you’d rather be the only one doing that, apparently.
Dicky D?
I’m sorry SC. But you wanna know what’s worse? Most of the time in my head it was Ophelia and Rebecca Watson doing a female version of the old SNL skit -“We’re two wild and crazy American bitches!” No, I’m not joking.
He studied biology!
You’re scary. But funny. Now I have the Hey You perfume skit in my head.
Poor form Tristan.
In a previous thread on this I made a comment about it all being rather depressing despairing that, in particular, Ophelia and Russell Blackford were taking each other to task over this. And I still despair and get a little depresse about it, but as Ophelia said: (slight paraphrase) “Do you think I’m happy about it?”
And of course I don’t think she’s happy about it, and I don’t think she, or anyone else, necessarily likes the process that’s going on, but it just is what it is. And there’s a range of reactions available to people that I think are totally valid, (for instance, a “Fuck you” in the heat of the moment) and understandable. We can all lament to the cows come home that it’s not all beer and skittles at the moment, but tut-tut posts with broad condemnation doesn’t help in the slightest.
Pee to the Zed to the PhD!
@710
Josh, I got the idea back in September that Jerry Coyne doesn’t respond kindly to online hoi polloi addressing him as “Jerry,” when he said of one e-mail that did “Unwarranted familiarity—I’ve never met the guy.” Sure, the guy was a Christian spouting some anti-evolution nonsense, but Coyne didn’t bring that up when he suggested an e-mailer has no business addressing him as Jerry. That’s the sort of thing that may encourage commenters to say “Dr. Coyne” if they want to stay on his good side.
Steve A.E.—that’s a good point. If I had to guess, though, I’d bet Jerry reacted that way because letters are supposed to be more formal, especially when you’re not a friend of the person to whom you’re writing. It’s one thing to say, “right on, Jerry,” in a comment on his blog. It’s another thing to demand his time and attention in his capacity as a biology professor and start out with “Dear Jerry.”
Yeah, it sounds like I’m dicing it a little fine, and I guess I am. But I’d react differently to “Josh, I think x or y” from a blog commenter on my blog than I would to a letter/email sent to me in my professional capacity that started that way.
But yeah, Jerry can certainly be mercurial. And very, very wrong on sexism issues.
Thanks. :) My mind does meander in perverse ways. And, turn about is fair play- you’ve now infected me with the perfume skit!
(Pssst, SC – “Jewess Jeans”)
Jerry is one of my fav bloggers (lol), but man does he have peccadilloes (It’s a blog, Jerry, just go with the flow, it’s a blog).
Amongst all this I haven’t actually caught up with where he’s at with EG etc, except that he’s emailed OB re laying off someone (Miranda?) and posted a Mr Diety clip on the topic (and I assume the comments section would be revealing). Has he said anything more substantial?
He’s still smarter than you!
Josh, yeah, while I still feel pretty reasonable to have thought “I’ve never met him either; I better not call him Jerry on here,” your points in 737 are all quite sound.
Grr.
the whole thing only makes sense if you assume that the reason there’s a gender imbalance is because the men really are better qualified; it really is the same thing, just with more words to obscure the insult better. not much of an olive branch, i you ask me.
obviously; after all, if there was a wide enough pool, there wouldn’t be a gender imbalance at conferences. d’uh
Yeah, I’ve no problem believing that she’s sincerely clueless about which part of what she said was the insulting part *shrug* it isn’t much of my business, though. It’s Ophelias, Jen McCreight’s Rebecca Watson’s etc. choice to decide whether they’re willing to accept that notpology as sufficient.
*snort*
Which, it should be noted, doesn’t really have anything to do with age. Well, maybe where you teach it does, but here, plenty of students are my age and older (and thus, Rebecca’s age and older)
how very un-German of you ;-)
yeah, but it’s just a biology degree, which we’ve been informed is all just memorization, and not nearly as awesomely sciency as a chemistry degree
iiiinteresting; I’ve never had people get mad at not being able to guess (and they rarely ever can); coincidence, or a racial thing?
Salty, what does that mean?
FWIW I’m of the opinion that (if your primary regular mode of comms is blogging) and you’re part of the NA/skeptical/atheist movement then what EG has turned into is well worth discussing, and avoiding it because it’s too inflammatory or not what you’re interested in, per se, is part of the problem.
I would love to see, regardless of content, a substantive post from both RB and Jerry Coyne on what’s been going on. I may well be disappointed with what they say, but I do think they do a very solid job with most topics of putting their thoughts down clearly, so that even if they say a bunch of stuff I disagree with vehemently, I at least know it’ll be easy to go “here is where I disagree/agree/see a problem” and further discussion can be had. As much as Claudia/Steve Z and whoever else have come in lamenting the tone and throwing up their hands, I think there is progress being made, ever so slowly and painfully.
Anyhoo.
I have to say, Dawkins’ response to that video as I remember it was charmingly funny. Dawkins: “I don’t get how it’s supposed to be amusing.”* Some commenters: “Oh, come on. Darwin raising the roof is great.” Dawkins: “I have no idea what that means.” Commenters: “This is what it means.” Dawkins, drily: “Fine, aside from Darwin raising the roof I don’t understand what’s so entertaining.”
That’s my recollection.
*all quotes are poorly remembered paraphrases
Sorry – that wasn’t directed at you.
ok.
That still leaves my question about Coyne unanswered though. Anyone?
Ah. This was it:
He’s posted a few times about it, taking a clear position: Mr. Deity, the conference video, J&M. When he posted the conference video he made it clear that the panel had agreed that sexism wasn’t a big problem in the movement and insisted that people, before commenting, watch the entire video and not bring up “Elevatorgate.” When people raised Watson’s response, he chastised them. He posted on the CdG thread at ERV (not praising “Twatson” but not objecting either). He emailed Ophelia trying to bully her into censuring me for my comment about Abbie and Miranda, and when she didn’t he broke off contact. I’d considered him a friend, and he’d long been a friend of Ophelia’s. He’s done nothing to distance himself from or condemn what Abbie’s doing.
He’s answered your question.
Oh – and he didn’t post my comment.
@SC
Alright. no need to continue this then.
@mirax
So? Are you stating that all young adults respond the same?
But you arent. Why the heck should SMG be apalled.? If other people choose to behave nastily that’s their problem.
Bueller? Bueller?
Actually, Dr Coyne hasn’t completely left the subject alone on his website (aka “blog”), but he has tried to circumscribe debate. For example, in posting a video of one of the panel discussions from the Convention in Dublin which featured Paula Kirby, he insisted that no one should bring in arguments raised in the panel where Rebecca Watson criticised Kirby’s talk, but should stick strictly to the one under examination – a clear demarcation of on-topic/off-topic discussion.
I’m guessing he feels (and I think he would be right) that writing a thorough post on the topic would lead to a full-blown train wreck in the course of the subsequent discussion, just as happened at Pharyngula over the course of 3 posts and 4,000 comments, and he doesn’t want to go there.
Speaking of which, Ophelia, I suppose you realise that the thread count here is mounting up, too?
* What was that we were saying about sexist epithets? Five years ago? (July 20, 99 comments)
* Rebecca give some helpful advice (July 23, 147 comments)
* Fun with names (July 25, 222 comments)
* Claiming to speak for (July 28, 465 comments)
* Crazy American bitches (August 3, 482 comments)
* More dog whistle (August 6, 748 comments as of now, and many more deleted)
There’s more threads earlier, but I’m surprised by the recent explosion in comment numbers.
It occurs to me that the whole ‘just because I post there doesn’t mean I endorse the content’ can be handily refuted with one word; Stormfront.
Then stop.
You appear to be.
Seriously? I don’t hold her responsible – she could never have foreseen this – but if people were attacking someone as they’ve been Watson in my name (were I McGraw or Dawkins), I would be horrified.
No.
Bullshit. That’s not on-topic/off-topic. That’s obviously, “This is the view I endorse and don’t argue with it.” And you know it, and everyone knows it.
Sorry our posts crossed before SC – I hadn’t reloaded the page before posting to see that you’d answered David M. Not being directly involved, I am totally out of touch with whom Jerry has been e-mailing on the issue, privately.
100% agreement. I thought it was a transparent move by Jerry at silencing debate – Watson’s critique was obviously relevant and on-topic!
So let me rephrase my clumsy statement: “a clear demarcation of what he, Jerry Coyne, would view as on-topic/off-topic discussion, and totally ignoring that Watson’s critique of Kirby was both relevant and on-topic.”
A senior scholar once told a story about Niklas Luhmann in Germany trying to park a car with a group of academics gathered around and people rejecting offers of help with “Herr Dr. Professor* Luhmann knows what he’s doing,” until he hit a stump.
*I can’t remember the series/order of titles.
***
Nope. Not buying this, either. He knows it’s relevant and on topic. Really, it’s evident what’s going on here.
This. She seems like a smart and thoughtful young woman, and I hope she’ll continue to speak out (despite disagreeing with her on certain feminist issues.) But it’s past time for her to speak out and distance herself from the ridiculous Watson-bashing that’s been going on. Stef, are you reading this? I’d say now’s the time to rise above your hurt feelings, and show what you’re made of. Can you publicly distance yourself from Abbie’s unconscionable dogpile?
This was it. :)
Thanks SC. :)
Crossposted my comment at #760 at Stef’s blog, for what it’s worth. Looks like she hasn’t posted anything for quite some time, and the last comment there was a few days ago.
I remember Cindy Lauper saying–this is from memory, so forgive me if I’m screwing it up–that her idea of feminism was women talking to women–if you’re in the john and your stall is out of toilet paper, you ask your neighbor for some, and shout “I guess it’s drip dry tonight!”
I wish Watson and McGraw would just go out for a beer together and hash things out. And let the effin’ misogynists hang themselves.
Cheers to SC and Phil Legge.
Deepak,
I was under the assumption that SMG was leadership material and a self proclaimed feminist. I tend to have high expectations of such people .
One thing I didn’t properly register yesterday, or say in my reply at Miranda’s – Salty said it –
Oh yes. So I am. Yes it’s really not all that surprising that I added it to the original post when I saw it, because I am after all one of the people Miranda was claiming were invited “simply because” we had the right genitalia.
I read her little comment again this morning, because I was trying to figure out how Sigmund could make sense of her account (I still don’t know), and what jumps off the screen is what fun she was having giggling with ERV’s gang. The whole comment is one long sneer, in the ERV spirit. Maybe she’s embarrassed by it now – but then the grown up thing to do would be just to say that. “You’re right. I got carried away, and I’m sorry.”
Another person it’s grossly unfair to is Melody Hensley, who had the idea for the conference and organized it. That pisses me off too.
Wo, cool. Margaret Downey this morning:
Both, please! (Is that greedy?)
Pretty sure it’s “Herr Professor Doktor McJewlastname” – “Doktor” is a personal qualification, so it goes as a part of the name, while “Professor” is ‘just’ a jobtitle and “Herr” is simply the mode of address.
So it’d be for example mr president dr Obama. Hmmm – “mr president” is a common mode of adress, but “dr president” sounds odd, though it oughta be correct.
English is weird as she is spoken.
Apparently, this is from some comic. Do Not Want.
Abbie:
I did not post anonymously at UNI Freethought. Apparently it was either Stacy Kennedy or someone quoting both of us from this thread. I don’t have the patience to try to find out what you or that response are babbling about. Stay classy.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
/chemist
Poor Blu, forced to deal with self-righteous people. Me cry. :(
Well, he does have that whole caveman thang going.
Incidentally, he didn’t like my suggestion that we refer to him as “Coynet” – well, I didn’t somuch suggest it, as say the pun was too far of a stretch.
–o–
Shame, SC. Ten points from Graspedor!
Oh, obviously it was Stacy Kennedy. Above @ #763:
Well, the Italians (supposedly) use “dottore” as an honorific for anyone they consider ‘learnèd” or “a man of letters”.
Drove DDMFM nuts when I dottored him before he earned his PhD.
(I flunked out of grad school, myself.)
It is – and it was funny. I just couldn’t think of a nicely stereotypical German name to put after the Mc.
“Which is probably another reason females like McGraw and I are ‘gender traitors’.”I’m so tired of this insinuation. I did not – and would not – call Stef McGraw a gender traitor, nor do I think anyone else did (it’s possible that someone somewhere has, but I haven’t seen it and would, of course, argue with it). It’s obnoxious and dishonest to suggest that I did.
So Abbie called you “SaltyCu***nt” –
jeezis.
Yeah, isn’t she transgressive and naughty?
Tee-hee. Hee.
Ha. Ha. Ha.
Now she’s treating me to age jokes. She’s a riot.
‘Dottore’ for the lads, ‘Dottoressa’ for the lasses in Italian. I was ‘dottoressa’ in Italy while I was there, despite the fact that law is only a bachelor’s degree in England, even when studied at postgraduate level (I did the Oxford BCL, which despite its name is a postgraduate qualification). Very confusing all round.
In other news, London and other parts of England are kicking off once more, but so far the rioting hasn’t spread to Scotland.
Already? When it’s not even 5 in the afternoon yet? Yikes.
What was the comment on one of these threads about (to quote Abbie) “females who disagree with Watson et ass are sex-addicted non-human primates”? Something about chimps? I don’t remember; does anyone?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14449675
West Bromwich.
Let’s all hope the riots don’t come near Arsenal!
I’m not sure where PZ said something that could even be twisted into that, though. And this is just so profoundly fucked up, on multiple levels. There’s a lot of reading comprehension fail going on, too, including with Stacy Kennedy’s cross-post that erv thinks SC posted.
Yeah, not so much.
McWienerschnitzel might’ve worked. (Technically Austrian, I guess, but a funny word.)
Supercilious clarification for the soccer-impaired: Yesterday Tottenham, today West Brom – tomorrow Arsenal? (All British football teams, which I only know because I had to watch the pools (is that the right term? “stryktips”) on tv when we only had the one channel.)
This information will self-destruct in …
wut
McWienerschnitzel FTW! You should hurry and trademark it, it’s bound to be worth a meal in certain markets.
Yeah, SC, that just seems like an utter comprehension fail. But then, I guess to actually understand the “one of the guys” comments, you have to have some understanding of privilege, and that is clearly lacking. There’s also some class-based stuff going on with erv (not so much here as in other areas, like farming) that annoys the fuck out of me.
Not really worth it, but I sense here the potential for a variation on one of the Churchill quibs, à la: Youth will pass; stupidity, not so much.
For me, ERV is good and done, stick a fork in.
But hey, all this talk about food makes me realize it’s time to ignite the Weber and apply the cured salmon to it.
She said I said WHAT??!?
I haven’t said that. I don’t think that. Abbie is really living in some twisted fantasy world at this point that has nothing to do with reality.
Oh, so it’s just something Erv made up? Well that’s a big help. And she accused me of hypocrisy for ignoring her question about it! (And she told a falsehood about what she said about the CFI conference, and she told me I’m ugly inside. She can pack a lot into a short comment.)
I like it.
De gustibus an’ all tha’. <a href=”http://vontown.blogspot.com/2007/11/shortpacked-comic-anti-semitic.html”>But I see that others consider it antisemitic</a>. It seems in part to be a difference in the interpretation of scope. I didn’t read it as implying that only Jews would strike, but ‘merely’ as a nod to the stereotype that Jews rule Hollywood. Given the rest of <a href=”http://www.shortpacked.com/2007/comic/book-5/07-the-spectacular-spider-car/strike/”>the comic</a> I see it as over the top satire – a mocking of those suggesting that only Jews can be funny.
Oh dang, PZ, I was so sure you did think that.
Actually I thought it could be something that some loose cannon said and I missed it in the flood. But it’s just Irv confabulating.
Gah! Sorry Ophelia, I forgot I’m supposed to use the editor.
I blame Freethoughtblogs.
How you manage conflict and disagreement says more about you as a person, than how you manage ordinary, day-to-day events and interactions.
Suffice it to say, erv is revealing her true face in this dispute, and it’s an ugly one, indeed. I’ve been following this discussion since it first blew up, and my impression is that some of the folks who know her feel her behavior is an aberration. Ok, I don’t know her, but I do know people… methinks this is who she is. Sure, it’s sad to see someone intelligent and energetic revel in childish displays of antagonism, but I think it’s reached the point where it would be more productive to ignore her. Her “start some shit” comment at the top speaks volumes: she’s getting off on being one of the “mean girls” – all the disapproval is her motivation.
Don’t get me wrong – I doubt that ignoring her will change her behavior (she gets too much social approval from her claque for that to happen). But – at the very least – it will rob her of the satisfaction of knowing her barbs are wounding their targets.
Yep. It’s probably well past the point where it would be more productive to ignore her. Ignoring her is definitely on the schedule now.
I must second Elly on this: I don’t think it’s either charitable or productive to pay attention to people who insist on peeing themselves in public. They invariably attract a curious crowd (circus acts and trainwrecks always do), but some of their effluents can get on your clothes.
That may be true of some but it seems like just as many if not more approve either outright or tacitly.
Speaking of women with vaginas:
Anyone trying to get Rachel Maddow for this conference?
Oh, physicians don’t get a pass either. They’re “doctor” in the office, and people everywhere else.
A friend of mine with a strong accent found when looking for a place to live that apartment complexes were totally full up when she called to ask as Ms. X, but magically when she called a few hours later as Dr. X they all had openings.
It’s hideously rude to bring it up in the first place. People aren’t a game show for others’ amusement!
Yeah, it was me. I don’t frequent ERV’s slimepit, so I don’t know what they’re saying about it over there, but I responded to the comments on Stef’s blog.
What a lot of wankers.
Gee, I don’t know. I don’t know if anyone is trying to get Cameron Diaz or Beyoncé, either. As far as I know it’s just a bunch of boring female intellectuals sitting around talking. I think the fun conference is across the street.
Agreed. And they’re part of the problem that “Elevator Gate” has revealed. But support for erv (tacit or direct) is a symptom of that problem, IMHO – not the problem itself.
I’m not suggesting that conversation about that problem should stop. All I’m suggesting is that we stop fanning the flames emanating from one particular direction.
Sorry.
I don’t know those latter two vaginas too well, though the names seem familiar.
Yup. Ignoring her was on the schedule last week, too, but then the CFI conference came in for some sneering, so I revised the schedule.
LOL, Ophelia – I certainly don’t fault you for responding to it. A lot of personal insults have been directed your way – you’d have to be a saint to ignore it completely. “Turn the other cheek” ain’t my personal style, either.
But I learned a long time ago, that – when you can predict someone’s behavior – you have power over them. It’s a game to erv now, and there’s nada to be gained by continuing to play. Odds are that she’ll amp up the venom for a while, in an effort to keep the outrage (and clicks) dialed up to “11,” but – in the end – I think it will fade to background noise.
@786, any idea in what comment specifically did PZ allegedly say that?
jose, I found it on the last thread at erv, and it had no link or other reference. I was only willing to browse around for a short time trying to find it.
seconded, and how!
[citation needed]
oh Jesus fuck, that’s dumb. “one of the guys” has absolutely never meant “dyke with penis envy”. I was “one of the guys” once, and I certainly never was a dyke. She’s
confusingconflating two things that don’t have anything to do with each other: lesbians do get accused of having penis-envy and wanting to be men, which is obviously homophobic; which is different from women who prefer the company of men to that of women, and will stand by men when they’re denigrating other women, i.e. women who “want to be one of the guys”.As things stand currently, no thread at all – she apparently made it up.
She got what she said about the CFI conference wrong, she got the comment at McGraw’s wrong, so I see little reason to think she got that right, especially given PZ’s “whaaaaat?”
I can’t decide if the reading comprehension problems are deliberate or not. I expect that, somewhere, PZ posted something related to monkeys. I think I remember something about baboons. It was decidedly not saying that, though.
I had never seen that video before. I find it amusing (but who’s the woman? I don’t recognize her)
Btw Ophelia, did you close comments on “Crazy American Bitches”? I can’t seem to load past #494, and there’s no comment box coming up. I’m not sure if this is on your side or mine.
Eugenie Scott from the NCSE.
Nathan, yes, I closed comments on that one. Do you badly want to keep it going? I closed it because I don’t want that wildlifer here – not after he made that “hygiene” remark. (I think he’s a he. If not…[shudder].)
One of the better things about B&W has always been its comments. I don’t attract junk. Those people import it by the dump truck load. They’re a nuisance.
Nah, that’s fine. I’d forgotten he’s the one who made that comment. I admit to a slight itch to respond to his direct comments to me, but it’s not important enough to ask you to reopen comments. I really don’t think it was going anywhere positive with him.
Just . . . maybe a quick comment in the future when you’re about to close comments? For those of us you aren’t mad at (I hope I’m in that group)? Please?
Sure. I should have, but forgot. Too many things to do today.
It’s not about being mad at. It’s about not wanting this place taken over by that gang. Have you seen what happened to Rorschach’s thread?
They’re not genuine interlocutors, they’re just a pack, trying what they can get away with on other blogs and filing reports at ERV. I’m not having ERV’s crew here.
I’m afraid not, I don’t believe I’ve been to Rorschach’s site. Your reasons are totally understandable.
@Deepak Sheety
Actually I don’t think Stef bears any responsibility for this mess, her post was stupid and she was called on it. It would have ended right there, were if not for all the “white knights” who had to jump to the defense of the “Poor defenseless woman child” and all the others who instead of stopping when saying “RW was right(stop should be here)but….(not here)”
“…suggesting women who dont see a problem with EG just want to be ‘one of the guys’, aka dykes with penis envy.”
Anyone who knowingly conflates lesbians with misogynists is beyond hope or help.
Yes they are! :(
Advance copy of CFI – women in secularism schedule leaked!
http://wtfbits.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/cfi-women-in-secularism/
Oh, FFS. That Justicar is a sleazy misrepresenter. Stacy Kennedy, would you mind going back* to Stef’s thread and making it clear that you left that comment (including the bolded portion you quoted from me) and that you’re not me? I think some of them intend to deceive (or at least to avoid setting the record straight), but others who aren’t involved are going to continue to think I left that comment, and I don’t care to engage with the likes of Abbie or Justicar further.
*Or anyone else – I’d really appreciate it.
Oh, look…another MRA with delusions that he has a sense of humor.
I am not an MRA. I don’t believe adults, which includes BOTH men and women should whine and
bitchabout trivial subjective feelings.Dawkins is spot on – this was all ZERO bad.
Just like the religious, you people need to grow up.
Oh isn’t that hilarious. Nobody at that conference but Watson, McCreight, Christina, and me…and that rad fem gurrrrrl PZ, haw haw haw. So respectful of Susan Jacoby and Margaret Downey and Wafa Sultan and Jamila Bey and Sikivu Hutchinson and Annie Laurie Gaylor and Elisabeth Cornwell.
And btw, people supporting Rebecca Watson are misogynists because they consider women fragile inferior beings who need to be protected from WORDS that might make them FEEL uncomfortable.
Bullshit. We consider people human beings who should not be called identity epithets. Nigger, faggot, kike, wop and the like – they’re just as bad.
Says the posse whose justification for starting a fire storm is that a student was made uncomfortable during a talk.
Clearly, those who oppose the use of racial slurs are the real racists.
Well, since the great wits of Team Misogyny are in action, I might as well add another gem…which I find much more depressing.
Sigmund, honestly – even if you think RW is the wrongest person who ever lived – how can you join in this horrible gang-mauling?
Exactly. Because by opposing those slurs, they are insinuating that said minorities aren’t tough enough to take the insults hurled at them, and that’s racist! (I’m pretty sure that’s how their line of thinking goes re: sexism…)
Quite right, Martin! Only the KKK really respects The Nigra, because the KKK knows The Nigra can take it.
Snap, Carlie. (UK snap, not US snap.)
Ophelia Benson, I have to say, your method of censoring people is truly deplorable. I have yet to see any objective basis upon which you make your decisions as to which comments should be removed; you have no posted rules anywhere on the site that I can find, and your decisions seem to run entirely based on subjective measures, most notably, whether or not the comment is strongly disagreeing with you.
This is a horrible practice! Censoring people simply for disagreeing is nothing but political censorship, and makes your site positively reek of propaganda. Please reconsider this habit of yours; if nothing else, post some rules or guidelines in an easy-to-find location here, so that commentators can know beforehand what is acceptable.
Just an FYI wtfbits… I took a quick look at some of the other “posts” on your blog. I gotta hand it to you: it takes chutzpah for someone with the artistic skills and humor of a dim 6-year-old to tell others that they “need to grow up.”
No no, I just spelled it out, Anti – I’m not having Abbie’s gang here. My house my rules. Abbie’s place reeks of something a good deal worse than propaganda, and I’m not having it here. Simple.
Seriously? I’ve seen some pretty strong disagreements with Ophelia, and most are still here who disagreed with her. She argues with those who disagree, she doesn’t censor them.
AntiC: Perhaps if you could present at least some minimal support beyond simple assertation for your accusation? Not that it is my place to give you any guidance, of course, but this very theme has been thrashed to, and over, the limits of normal endurance here. Mainly, it appears, by drive-by logins.
Oh, and please don’t take this the wrong way, but, you know what I mean?
SC, I gave them my name two hours ago. Just now I went back and pointed that out. For good measure, I said, “I am not Salty Current”.
Wonder if that’ll stop them? It’s not like they’re interested in accuracy, or honesty. I apologize for inadvertently involving you.
Whenever kindergarten goes into recess, we get overrun with toddlers having tantrums and trailing filled diapers…
Sorry, sweet hostess, my fencing is not so utterly brisk it seems.
Checking out for now to hit the straw-sack in the bedroom.
@AntiCensorship: it’s Ophelia’s blog… deal with it. If this is what you find “truly deplorable,” make sure you have some smelling salts handy, should you ever show up on any of my cyber-real estate.
FWIW, I have yet to see Ophelia censor people merely for disagreeing. Being disagreeable, however, is a different matter.
@837 anticensorship:
Yes, deplorable. Deplorable, I say. This site REEKS of censorship. Reeks, I say. Ophelia: please consider this habit of yours. It’s been like, I dunno, HOURS, since someone called you a witch or Salty a Cu***nt.l What the hell is wrong with you?
ps. Anticensorship? Bite me. You’re a moron.
One of the biggest things many skeptics and atheists (from the little I’ve seen) claim pushed them away from religion was the belief in eternal punishment and torture. How it was unjust and wholly disproportionate. I took this to mean skeptics favored a measured approach to perceived wrong doing where the wrong doer got a certain amount of respect even if they’re bad/evil/whatever. We don’t do certain things to people even if we hate them.
I guess the things we won’t do only involve physical contact. I guess I was expecting more.
No prob Rrr.
By the way wtf, calling me a bitch isn’t going to persuade me to let you comment here after all.
I’ve updated the About page with a helpful new Rule, as a guide for the perplexed.
Ah. A Guide with Rules for the Perplexed. Now what can they do? Quick, get a patent!
julian, I know it. It’s so depressing. “Not humiliated enough yet? After five weeks of it? Ok then, I’ll put you in that elevator drunk and lecherous, and then make you throw up. Hahahahahahaha!”
It’s not just depressing, it’s fucking scary.
How long before wtfbits comes back crying that we’re insulting it simply because we disagree with it? Those poor dissenters, victims of Opheia’s vicious political propaganda. Breaks my heart.
Well, do they? Care to give a citation? Nah. The shoe is on the wrong foot, see.
Well my guess is that wtf is too busy reporting to ERV about my censorship and my refusal to let it call me a bitch to have time to try to tease here for the moment. I’m not going to look, but that’s my bet.
Not to mention the fact that this stuff is not “radical feminism.” This is boringly mainstream feminism.
Again, apologies for cluttering. You might want to flush my #852 along with the toxic influence that provoked it.
This time, I shall indeed retire!
Hm…ignoring the hyperbole–I can’t recall a troll on Pharyngula being harassed for days and days. And trolls actually, you know, post on the thread that attacks them. They tend not to be chewed on when they’re not present.
Somebody would have to be mighty obsessed to do that. Or desperate for attention. Or, you know, just a real jackass.
(Meta: Just when I think they can’t get any stupider….)
No kidding. I keep having mental images of throwing them in a room with Twisty Faster and watching their heads explode.
Julian, I think that it’s just that we’ve discovered the difference between the people who mean it and the people who only think they mean it. Real sceptics don’t forget to be sceptical about themselves.
Wrong again, Ophelia! It IS radical feminism.
To the Taliban.
Ophelia: Do you really disagree that banning people simply because they associate with an individual, or visit a specific website, is censorship? That is a nearly *textbook* definition of censorship. It does not matter where anyone goes–if they are not being disruptive or otherwise violating rules here, then there is no ethically legitimate reason to ban them here. When you are banning them with such flimsy reasoning as “You’ve been posting on this other site that I disagree with,” you are censoring them for their associations and/or their views; this is inarguable.
Would you think it justifiable if, say, JREF were to start banning users simply “because they visited Butterflies & Wheels”?
Furthermore, your new “rule” is simply childish. Are you an adult? You certainly are not acting like one. These kinds of antics are what I would expect from a grade-school playground, not a skeptic and author. “You played with Sally? You’re not my friend any more!” is *not* an adult way to behave. Censoring people for their associations is *not* an ethical or rational way to behave. Take a look at nearly any large forum; they will, every one of them, have a clearly-listed set of rules for behavior, outlining the things that will cause a user to be banned; this provides both an objective basis for their staff to use when deciding if someone should be banned, and provides the users with a way of knowing what behavior is allowed/required (such as keeping a civil tone at all times; this is a popular rule, I should note).
What you are doing here does not, in the slightest, foster any rational or reasonable discussion; instead, you are simply acting like a dime-a-dozen tyrant, of the sort that have had censorship put in place across the world. You disagree with someone, and therefore, you are using that as your reasoning for banning them and everyone who agrees with them. Also, I should add that there is also a strong parallel between your behavior and that of Joseph McCarthy.
Nathan: I’ve been watching for a while now, and I’ve seen quite a few comments disappearing for no apparent reason. Every one of them has voiced disagreement with Ms. Benson.
Rrr: Oh, isn’t that just precious. You’re asking me to give support for the disappearance of comments? What am I supposed to do, quote the no-longer-existing comments, which are therefore unverifiable? Or would you prefer it if I simply point out places where people are responding to non-existent comments, while nothing is preventing Ms. Benson from going back and erasing *those,* too? Should I just screen-capture every new comment so I can see if it is still there later, knowing full well that this could easily be dismissed as “photoshopped” or some similar argument? Or shall I point out some of the comments that have been clearly edited, while, again, nothing is preventing Ms. Benson from simply deleting them?
Elly: “It’s her blog” does not make her censorship one iota more ethically defensible. Censoring dissent is as despicable in the realm of debate as it is in the realm of politics.
I’m so shocked you’re right, Ophelia. You must be psychic!
Julian, I’m with you, too. My personal break with religion was at least in part fueled by the realization that we (churches, religionists, etc) weren’t better than that, and I too hoped for something more from other people who’d figured out the hypocrisy. Fortunately, there are some places where it’s not too much to expect.
It’s not the fact that they’ve been posting at ERV that’s the deciding factor. Since everything else you said is based on this false premise, I’ll stop here.
He certainly did use a lot of words to say it, though. : )
Ophelia is not banning people because they have visited a particular website. If she were, she would have banned me since I did make some comments early on in Abbie Smith’s spiral into insanity. Of course, the fact I was hostile to the sexist and misogynist position being taken by so many there might have something to do with it. Or maybe she never noticed me.
Thanks, Stacy. I don’t know if it will stop them. For some of them, the goal seems overwhelmingly to be to sabotage rational discourse about sexism or feminism.
The new rule:
Emphasis mine. Really, need I say more? Given how often Ophelia has expressed what she thinks of what’s going on over there?
Yes, “AntiCensorship”, it’s all about disagreement. You obviously did an extensive backup check before posting your comment, and you are clearly aware that this statement (“Ophelia deletes posts simply because of disagreement”) has never been discussed before, so thank you so much for bringing it to everyone’s attention. Aren’t you smart!
There are proper kinds of censorship, AntiC, like eschewing anyone or anything associated with misogyny and character-assassination, as well as malicious bloggers and self-righteous hypocrites.
Auntie Censorship: au contraire – it’s perfectly defensible. If you visit my house and proceed to trash it, or behave in offensive ways, it is not being “inhospitable” to point to the door, and tell you not to let it hit you in the ass when you leave.
Ophelia’s blog may be available to the public, but she owns the domain and pays for the hosting. It’s her “house.” As such, she’s under no obligation to tolerate objectionable “guests.”
Antic., there can be no polite “disagreement” or any question of courteously considering “other points of view” over the gleeful taking-apart of another human being and the trashing of all the principles we value. Reducing a fundamental ethical divide to the status of a mere “disagreement” is beneath contempt.
I kinda disagree with this, only because I would actually like to hear the reasoning behind wanting to use sexual epithets. I tried reading that site but it just pushes me over the edge and makes me ill, so I wouldn’t mind actually hearing the argument put in a less offensive and more rational way.
Trust me, you really wouldn’t. There seems to be no reasoning, other than “no can tell me me what I say” and “fuck poltical correctness”. We do not seem to be dealing with people who are much into introspection.
I think you can find some of that reasoning if you look around the threads. It seems to boil down to not buying that such usage has an effect on the culture, or can have an effect on those hearing/seeing such usage.
Really? Surely there must be more to it.
Let me see if I can think of the reasons I’ve seen (in no particular order):
1) You can’t tell me what to say, that’s censorship.
2) My friends use it as a joke, so it must not be that bad.
3) The use of those words doesn’t actually have an effect on our culture.
4) Listening bystanders should know not to take offense, since I wasn’t talking about them.
5) Words don’t hurt, actions hurt (“sticks and stones. . . “)
6) It’s just political correctness, and that’s wrong.
7) If you can call guys a “dick,” then surely we can use “cunt”
–Did I miss any? Some of those are just the same thing, coming from a different direction.
David, there is no argument that “cunt” and “smelly snatch” are somehow not as bad as “nigger” or “faggot”. That’s why they hit rock-bottom with those words. Where else could they go?
8) There exsists at least one woman who is not offended by these terms, therefore no women should be.
Guess I just expected ….more.
Not that my opinion shoud matter but,
Generally speaking, people shouldn’t be banned for their behavior elsewhere. If they’ve expressed hateful or bigoted remarks, shown themselves to be a common troll or just someone out looking to harass other people, then I can definitely see why a mod would want to keep them away. In those cases it’s just keeping your place in order.
Of course if what’s meant by supportive is adding or contributing to any of the listed behavior then this comment was pretty pointless.
Oddly enough, nobody thought that we’d be able to convince misogynists not to be so misogynistic if we just asked nicely. I was rather under the impression that we were directing our requests to cease the use of misogynistic slurs at people who claim not to be misogynistic, but insist on using them anyway. Of course, in that case, your argument fails.
Blueharmony came here as a troll, worse an obvious troll, And anyone who calls someone a nigger is a racist anyone who calls someone a twat is a misogynist. Make whatever arguments you like but make the argument or attack the argument don’t try to denigrate half the population because of what they were born. It has no bearing on the argument. All of the examples you cited were people who were attacked for what they did or said, not for what they were born as.
David: there really isn’t a “less offensive and more rational” argument to be made for it. The point of using such epithets is to shock and hurt people. The way they’re being used at ERV is the way they’re intended to be used.
The fact that it pushes you over the edge and makes you ill is a good thing, trust me.
way to miss the fucking point. It’s not about specific words, it’s about using slurs, in general.
But people who don’t actively hate women won’t be socialized into subconscious misogyny and/or with social scripts that have sexist results, and therefore society as a whole will become less sexist/misogynist, and women will become less likely to suffer from subconscious discrimination, stereotype threat and the stress-responses I cited upthread.
This denial of cultural sexism is really quite tedious.
I actually saw someone over there argue he’d tell a woman kicking a dog to stop being such a fucking bitch. The justification being she was acting like a fucking bitch. I wonder how appropriate it was for all the guys I know who thought the same of telling someone picking up change to quit acting like a fucking jew.
David I take your point but they have had weeks to do that, and there are a million places to do it. I’m not having them here. They will take over any opposed blog they are allowed to, and drag it into the sewer. Not this one.
I know! And many of them were arguing it was ok because the words had lost meaning. When they were being used exactly as intended (to demean, hurt and humiliate someone of that group.)
I’ll be closing this thread for the night in an hour or two.
Listen, Woden, if you use misogynistic words, you are a misogynist. If you try to justify their use, you are a misogynist. They derive their force as insults from the underlying assumption that women are in their nature contemptible. To use them as insults is to agree that an association with women is degrading. My opinion is that the Erv thread is gleefully misogynistic, a celebration of misogyny and callousness. Words matter, because they say what you mean. I have nothing but contempt for the cowardly whining and self-justification that we are now seeing. The showboat is sinking, and the rats are trying to get off.
Oh I know Ophelia, I just like to argue, I read that thread over there when it was only about 800 posts long my wife made me get off my computer because I was getting obviously “over agitated”. I was going to reply but by the time I went back it was well over 1400+ posts and i just couldn’t read it anymore. I tend to need to read entire threads before I can post usually I’m hoping someone will make the point I want made so i do not have to.
I like to argue too – no, really?! – but not with people like that. It’s a big big big world, with billions of people we can argue with. We’re not so impoverished for interlocutors that we have to resort to ERV’s fanboiz.
I only argue in very specific topics, I don’t even know why this is really one of them, It may have something to do with my over-sensitivity to things that are “unfair” as I see it.
Well I know damn well why it’s one for me.
And on that note: closed until tomorrow morning.
@Opehlia
were we not trying for 1000 comments :) ?
@david
We dont disagree then.
Well, that was an interesting couple of days. *blink*.
In case anyone’s curious, here’s what PZ wrote:
And what ERV apparently read:
Well, I certainly can’t see any difference there.
Ohhhhh, that one. I remember that one; I thought it was very apt!
And………………….ERV’s reading is just
well, it’s defective.
Well done, Martin.
MartinM –
Thanks for digging that quote out of PZs thread.
What a shame that ERV has lost her mind.
Among other things, “sex addicted monkeys” can only come from peoplr who know little about primates — or choose to ignore basic biological facts. Primates go through estrus, so females who are not in heat are not interested in sex and males don’t approach them. Humans are unique in being “in heat” all the time and as a result the only ones susceptible to “sex addiction” (whose definition, depending on the culture, includes women who dare experience and/or demand orgasms).
Baboons, of course, are (in)famous for having rigid hierarchies that they enforce with nasty tactics, unlike our closest relatives, the bonobos and chimpanzees. Although even among baboon species nastiness not only differs but is also partly a conditioned response — as demonstrated by switches of infants.
Here’s another reasoned, elegant, thoughtful critique of Rebecca. I’ll post the link directly so that you can get the flavor.
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/08/09/up-yours-rebecca-watson/
I don’t know why any of us would think The Campaign Against Rebecca Watson would have anything at all to do with misogyny. What can we be thinking?
It looks like some of our Senior Figures had their in-defense-of-Abby spiels all prepared for when she got attacked by creationists, or anti-vaxers, or other woo merchants; before the recent descent into insanity, she was doing some good stuff in those areas. So when this mess blew up, we got the indulgent, naughty Abby, it’s just in fun defences- even though they’re completely inappropriate here.
Seeing some of the arguments that have been coming out for why blatant misogyny is absolutely fine, and resisting sexism is somehow sexist, it sounds a bit like this:
“The principles of justice, liberty and equality make it absolutely necessary that all people – male or female, gay or straight, of all creeds and none, and of any nationality – should have the right to own slaves.”
Gah. Article’s bad enough, but the fifth comment down is incomparably worse.
Such brilliant gems of enlightenment. And the rest of his posts! He couldn’t possibly have any issues with outspoken women.
Well I’m done identifying with any sort of skeptic or atheist movement. Who’s up for some Wild Turkey?
I guess the thing I find the most disturbing about this sort of thing, is what it says about erv as a scientist. We’ve been discussing her character (or lack thereof), but IMHO, there’s a significant overlap between the two. You just don’t drop your professional ethics when the lab door closes behind you.
I spent a number of years living off the NIH dole. Although I no longer do laboratory research, I still carry those ethics with me in my writing and other public postings. Elly’s Rule Number One states: you simply don’t say/write s**t that you can’t back up. Rule Number Two: you think carefully before making your thoughts public, since a reputation that takes years to build, can take only seconds to destroy. If I were one of her senior colleagues, I’d be eyeing her performance very closely, since erv’s sending out unmistakable signals that she’s a loose cannon on deck. Someone with a propensity to misquote and misinterpret others on a whim, is also someone who might invent or misinterpret data. Someone who shoots from the lip is someone who could potentially embarrass the institution that employs him/her.
Paul Mirengoff’s ( http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/paul-mirengoff-leaves-power-line-after-yaqui-indian-post/ ); and Nir Rosen’s ( http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/02/16/nir-rosen-apologizes-resigns-from-nyu-over-lara-logan-tweets/ ) fates illustrate how being a little too quick to hit “submit” can come back to bite you on the ass.
“Defective reading” isn’t a good trait to see in a researcher.
Holy hell. The ugliness is bottomless. I’m really afraid to speculate about what percentage of the general population the sample in the blogosphere is representing. Even if every single person who feels this way is already in the conversation, it’s still pretty goddam depressing.
I know. I normally live insulated from rampant unabashed “outspoken” misogyny – and that’s a good thing! I would have been very happy never to have known any of this.
Here be irony aplenty.
A thought just struck me. It seems quite hypocritical of Abbie Smith to go after other persons’ good names with such glee and abandon as she lets out in her infamous Monument series, in view of how violently she herself reacted when her own good name was vilely attacked four years ago. How did she come to change her mind about character assassination? Suddenly it’s now OK just as long as it is not aimed at your precious self? Is ERV no longer concerned about making a career?
That time the accused accuser was a male Creationist student using a transgendered sock puppet to call her, among other things, a liar to her ”real name”, and other morally challenged individuals rushed in viciously, complete with stalking and outright threats.
Stop me if any of this sounds familiar? Or actually, just check out that old sordid tale for yourself. Here’s a place to start:
In which ERV eats SALs soul
“My name is on the line with every word I type about HIV.
In addition to that, big wigs in the HIV world read my blog. I am sometimes useful for Dealing with Deniers. Specifically, someone I want to hire me in 4, 5 (shoot me now if its 6) years reads this blog.
Oh and Elly, we seem to share similar thoughts. Pity I overslept today, it took me some time to format this comment.
Wait…I’ve been saying it’s better that we get this into the open, we need to know it’s there.
Well………………..I think we do need to know it’s there, but
but it makes me want to puke, I guess is the dainty conclusion. We need to know it’s there, but some people are more loathsome than I enjoy realizing.
EWWWWWWW!
That fifth comment that Martin mentioned. I could only take about a para of it. Jeezis.
Exactly. That some people could deny the presence of sexism within the skeptic/atheist community before, was rather dismissive, but also somewhat defensible, given its relatively low (though no less insidious) profile. That anyone could deny it now after this hideous parade of garbage is downright gobsmacking.
Fumbles fingers, that’s me. My last line is my own comment of course, I missed an “unquote” just before it.
And I’m truly sorry, Ophelia, to bring up such ancient icky stuff from the sewers, but it did seem relevant.
I don’t know how much room for interpretation that explicit “But we aren’t” can leave. The comment can be rephrased in a simpler way: wanting to chase off a whole gender from the group, except for those willing to be targets of sexual propositions, is bad. I would expect that from a baboon troop, not from humans.
Women who don’t see a problem with EG don’t want to do that, so the point doesn’t apply to them. Who would be PZ talking about? Maybe people like this.
Elly and Rrr: as an NIH-funded academic research scientist, I made the same point in an earlier B&W thread. Under no circumstances would I want someone who behaves like Abbie Smith in my department or lab.
That post is a bit ambiguous. She was “called on” her first post. It might have ended there (and I don’t see any reason why it would have to – the discussion amongt her, Watson, and feminists could have continued), but McGraw did then post about Watson’s speech, presenting it in very negative light. Again, she couldn’t have foreseen the extremity of what “resulted,” and her experience is for many merely a pretext, but she did make that post.
Did she change her mind? Wasn’t it always OK as long as it is not aimed at your precious self?
I don’t know that for a fact, because I didn’t read her in the past, because I’ve never liked her way with epithets. I’m asking. But I don’t see anything in that post that indicates otherwise.
And that was the “cottage cheese dripping pussy” one. No, I’ve never liked her way with epithets.
Rrr, don’t be sorry, it is relevant – and interesting.
Athena, thanks for the confirmation. The Internet is a busy beehive, and you are obviously extremely wise but I had not seen that part before.
Still, I find it sad to see so much talent go to waste on stupid infighting. On the other hand, maybe it is after all better to see falsity and duplicity exposed and expelled than to let it fester unchecked.
I plan to stop wasting my talent (hahahahaha) now and resume normal broadcasting. As “normal” as it can be given what I now know.
I wonder how this works. That guy who wrote that post I linked in # 901 – do the women in his life know he’s like that? If they do how can they stand to be in his life?
Assumes facts not in evidence.
He probably does. For all we know he may even be wonderful to them. Women fell in love and got married and had happy marriages when they were property (and still do in places where they remain property).
Well it was a deliberately general claim – friends, sisters, cousins, co-workers – there are probably some, unless he’s really unusually reclusive.
julian – it seems to me highly unlikely that guy could be wonderful to any women. It’s not really “for all we know,” because one thing we know is that he harbors a startling level of hostility to women as such – to women as women, not to women who did something bad to him.
Ophelia, once a zookeeper, always a zookeeper. Beware who and how you feed’em, is all.
I was going to disagree but then realized none of the scenarios I envisioned had much long term potential to them and the one that did did not involve a woman with a healthy outlook.
Seconded. Like Rrr, I hadn’t seen the comment, but I’m glad to see that someone who’s an active researcher feels this way too. I left academia behind more than a decade ago… so I’ve had to wonder how much standards have fallen (or maybe collapsed is a better word?) since I last peered through an inverted scope.
Two words: emotional abuse. Women often stay with – and even defend – their abusers for years.
From the “about” section of that blog:
‘Nuff said.
Like I said, there’s no way he has issues with assertive women. None what so ever!
What a fucking tool.
I should tell the men in my life, who have no desire whatever to run my life for me, that I don’t want them, I suppose.
The problem is, being decent people who take me at face value, they might believe that.
FTFY.
Oh, and I am not irony impaired, not in the least!
He’s an obvious PUA/MRA. I say leave him to David Futrelle – http://manboobz.com/?s=malafide
Ohhh, David Futrelle. Well done Elly!
Just to point out, PZ’s post was made <a href=”http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/crazy-american-bitches/#comment-103520″>here</a> at B&W, on the previous thread, not over at one of the Pharyngulas old or new.
Oh arse. I hate the editor here sometimes!
Let’s try that PZ linky thing again.
Oh well, one more post closer to the four figure mark I suppose.
Mmph. I’m really not trying for 1000!
When you hit 1000, you’ve made your own monument, Ophelia.
(A nicer one, to be sure)
<big round number logic>
Abbie still hasn’t acknowledged her error in attributing Stacy Kennedy’s post to me, either on her thread or on Stef McGraw’s.
I was saying recently that I had to take Man Boobz off my feeds. He does a great job, and it’s important to know it’s out there, but I have to limit my reading. That’s one of the most vile people on the internet, and the post Ophelia links to @ #901 was linked to at ERV (a couple of people expressed moderately negative views, but at least one quoted from it; it certainly wasn’t roundly condemned).
That’s ok, I don’t need or want a monument. Ordinary everyday threads are just fine.
Will close for the night in a few minutes.
FWIW, maybe the remaining 40-odd posts can be devoted to the question: “where do we go from here?” The lines have been drawn, and we know where they are. So how do we move on from here?
Personally, I think the CFI conference is a great start – I wouldn’t want to see it be a “one-off” event. I see nada wrong with prominent skeptical/atheist women working together to create venues for more women’s voices to be heard. Women-centered and led conferences won’t exclude men, but are more likely to be seen as safe spaces for other women who might otherwise hesitate to join the community (particular after seeing how badly RW has been trashed). Ultimately, atheism and skepticism will be advanced by this. A “Women in Secularism” group need be no more divisive than – say – the League of Women Voters or the National Association of Professional Women.
From the post linked to in #901:
I’m already an atheist and a feminist and I’m kind of a hipster. I’m definitely going to start describing myself as a “hipster atheist feminist.” Awesome.
“Blueharmony came here as a troll, worse an obvious troll, And anyone who calls someone a nigger is a racist anyone who calls someone a twat is a misogynist. Make whatever arguments you like but make the argument or attack the argument don’t try to denigrate half the population because of what they were born. It has no bearing on the argument. All of the examples you cited were people who were attacked for what they did or said, not for what they were born as.” – David.
The above is blatantly false, moreover it implies, no it says, that I called someone names which are simply not part of my vocabulary, and that I am a racist and a misogynist because of it.
And I objected to the link where Rebecca was criticized for nothing but her gender and appearance.
……… 5th comment in that post at #901
I . . . I . . . all I can think of are expletives. I’m fucking shocked! He . . . shit on a stick, people actually think like that???
I would really really really like to find out this is some version of a Poe, but fucking A, I don’t think it is.
I am so so sorry! I used to JOKE about feminism oppressing men, but, fuck NO! Fuck that shit! Not when there are people like that out there!
The link that you’re discussing IS an example of sexism; moreover, it is pointless and cruel.
The link that you’re discussing IS an example of sexism; moreover, it is pointless and cruel.
Says the whining little thing that has been participating enthusiastically in a very similar cesspit.
anon @ 93 said:
I’m amused.
I can see why you would think that, but if you look at my comment immediately before David’s, you’ll see that I quote a post that no longer exists. It was that to which David was responding, and I think if you’d seen the original it would have been clear that the only statement which was intended to refer to you was the one calling you a troll. The rest was in response to arguments made in the deleted comment.
But this is how people are viewing it now and it is how I have it saved. My integrity is on the line. I’m simply standing up for what I think is right — that’s all. There are other dishonest comments here as well.
I don’t approve of calling people names. I would have never done that. But I am not responsible for the behavior of others.
I am a rape victim. For me this was a triggering event. I hope that makes you happy.
No, you’re not. You’re responsible for your own response to the behaviour of others, especially those with whom you voluntarily associate. If a friend tells me a racist joke and I don’t call them out on it, people who overhear will tend to assume that I don’t object. If a group of people persist in using racial epithets, and I voluntarily remain part of that group, conversing with them on friendly terms, people who see this will tend to assume that I don’t object. Any harm to my reputation that stems from this is entirely my own doing. I see no reason to approach gendered epithets any differently.
Of course it doesn’t make me happy. There’s no one here who would take pleasure in your suffering. I’m truly sorry that this is difficult for you. I appreciate that this might be hard for you to believe, but I’d actually be perfectly happy to have a civil discussion with you about our differences. While I don’t agree with you, I think you’re one of the few people who have at least attempted to articulate your position, and I respect you for it.
GT-Blu … can I make an observation?
Your reading of the underlying issues at play here appear to me to be completely and utterly nowhere-near-even-earshot of what most (dare I say, rational?) people are concerned about.
Seriously, you’re concerned about a category error. A. Category. Error.
You’ve got your own hobby-horse to ride – and maybe that makes you “one of the guys” over at the other place – but the horse you’re riding appears to be running in a totally different race. O.O
If you cannot see the rampant misogyny on display from within the ranks of the skeptic movement that has been dug up by this and, more importantly, where that misogyny is coming from, then you really are confused.
Blu, I think your best bet would be to leave this and calm yourself and take time to sort yourself out. You won’t solve your emotional difficulties this way, because feelings are too high, both sides consider — or at least claim — that they are acting on principle, and neither side is likely to give. On this side we have our own idea of why that is, and it is not helpful to you. This is ultimately an ethical debate over fundamental principles, and vistas of the depth of misogyny in society and the frailty of our claims to rationality are becoming ever clearer. I’d leave this battle if I were you and concentrate on my more personal concerns.
I never said there wasn’t a problem with sexism in the community, in fact I said there was. So what is our actual difference in principles? I am a feminist. I don’t subscribe to “gender type feminism.” I think many of the issues are better addressed through a socialized economic policy.
I see you’re treating me very differently now, and I think I know why that is. But not one of you is brave enough to say the actual words.
GT-Blu … that’s just more “white-knighting”.
None of those statements, that the Armchair Skeptic takes umbrage at, are actually incorrect. Are they? You’ve watched the video of the presentation I take it?
Also, one would presume (because, AFAIK, she hasn’t said “boo” about it since) that SMG is an adult. And, as an adult making a public post, as an adult, that she was happy for other adults to read, in public, that she was happy with the point she was making, as an adult, in public.
So. If the point she was making was dissected by another adult – in public – and was declared an issue by said adult, publicly – what’s the problem? We’re all adults here, right?
Unless you need to infantalise SMG somehow. To make RW into a monster. Then you can bash her all you want, right?
Right?
David was only accusing you of trolling, Blu; his assertions that “anyone who calls someone a nigger is a racist anyone who calls someone a twat is a misogynist” were not aimed at anyone in particular
I don’t entirely agree with him, but that might be a discussion for another day
At the moment, comments like #947 are just going to wind people up, even though they are made with (presumably) good intentions
I think there are loads of errors & significant ambiguities in what Watson, McGraw, and a load of other people have written or said during the last couple of months
But I don’t think dumping my thoughts on those on to a blog where people seem to be mostly concerned about the abuse that Watson has received is a good idea
I can understand why like you commenting on Abbie / ERV’s blog, and don’t want to be found guilty by association (you have written some contentious things though), but I don’t think she is worth it
Well, let’s start with your take on objectification. I think the elevator incident was a pretty clear-cut case of sexual objectification. I don’t think a literal interpretation of EG’s words is credible, given the context in which they were used. But more importantly, I don’t think his intent actually matters here, because McGraw actually agreed with Watson that he was showing sexual interest in her. So as far as the disagreement between McGraw and Watson goes, the relevant distinction is the one between sexual attraction and sexual objectification, which is precisely what Watson focused on in her talk.
Oh, piffle.
Really?
Everyone in the blogsphere is up in Rebecca’s grill because she didn’t define her terms correctly?
Really?
She’s being called names because of that? That’s it?
Bullshit. Utter bullshit.
You have got blinkers on. Really, really, really big ones.
One question. Why isn’t Steff’s statement that, “My concern is that she takes issue with a man showing interest in her etc. etc.” isn’t parrotting misogynistic thought? The MRA idea that if a woman gets propositioned that she should suck it up because she should just be happy to get the attention of a male.
Seriously. You should take Gordon’s advice above and take a break to sort stuff out.
Somehow looking at that horrid link posted in Abbie’s thread made it easier for me to express what apparently no one else could. We’re on the same side; I agree with you on almost everything else. But I think that we also need to consider the impact Rebecca has on men who are sexist. She’s leaving them with a negative impression of women, and that means all women. This is much worse than a gender slur. You can’t get around this one.
But Watson’s talk does excuse what others are throwing at her now? You’re asking for compassion and empathy for McGraw; why doesn’t Watson deserve the same?
Who is treating you differently? If you look back through the comments of the people who are talking to you now, I think you’ll find we’re pretty consistent.
Also, I have no idea what actual words you’re referring to. I’m autistic; I can’t read your implicature.
Martin, she does deserve the same, I fully agree. But someone should at least reprimand her for treating those women the way she did. There are other problems too. She’s attacking others quite consistently in her blog, and doesn’t always get the facts right.
I can get around that one.
GT-Blu … those men? They already had a negative impression on women. Nothing Rebecca said would have made the slightest imprint on their opinion of women. Maybe they would have though more of her if she’d parroted some MRA talking points.
Rebecca’s impact here is the equivalent of turning on the light to catch the cockroaches.
There are plenty of men that think what Elevator Guy did was a dumb move and that no-one should be made to feel uncomfortable at a convention. That’s what this boils down to, doesn’t it?
Would you accept that as a reasonable justification of the use of ethnic slurs against one particular person of that ethnicity? It’s not hatred of black people, just hatred of one black person?
That way lies solipsism. Nobody can know what another is thinking, but people make reasonable inferences about others’ thoughts and intent on the basis of their language, both the words and the context. Implied meanings are commonplace.
And I’ll repeat that the disagreement between Watson and McGraw is not about what EG was thinking. McGraw didn’t suggest that maybe he really did just want coffee. She said that Watson objected to a man showing sexual interest in her, which is simply not the case.
I’m at work, and not about to look up the video to check its content. But ‘sexualisation’ and ‘sexual objectification’ are not mutually exclusive. The former is a component of the latter.
No. That’s classic victim blaming. No matter how badly one specific woman behaves, any man who generalises that to all women is himself the problem. Not her.
People of that a particular race use them against each other; so by that logic women should be able to use them against one another too. But I don’t think that’s a good idea, I think people should behave professionally. I simply don’t have the right to tell others what to do. I’d do anything to make the awful words used in that thread go away, because clearly they are offensive to some. But freedom of speech is valuable too, and bad language doesn’t mean bad people. You have to look past that. Sometimes a simple request works better than a command. People should try to talk through conflict. I tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully.
They have, repeatedly. I think what’s happening at ERV has gone a little past reprimanding by now.
For the record, I don’t agree with Watson on everything. In particular, I think implying that McGraw was being dishonest by referring to her editing of the transcript as ‘convenient’ was out of line.
Well, GT, all I can offer is that a thicker skin is required when strong feelings are expressed on the ‘net. Especially when there is so much bad-faith arguing going on. And especially when certain quarters are engaged in baiting others.
And I’m glad we can all concur about that comment (which I couldn’t finish reading) – that’s the kind of thing the majority of people in here have been railing against. And it’s the kind of behaviour that is encouraged by the way Rebecca is being treated by quite a few people. And, yes, as Martin says, it’s gotten a bit beyond reprimanding.
It’s almost gleeful now.
Bluharmony:
So, when McGraw criticizes Watson, that’s merely disagreeing, and when Watson criticizes back, that’s ‘attacking’? I think you are employing a double standard.
I’m sorry matey, but [citation needed] – the one you supplied was … somewhat lacking.
Spooky, I agree that feelings have escalated wildly on both sides, but think about how you guys treated me. I was just presenting the argument and trying to get people to calm down. No one listened. You attack, they swear. People are complaining about posts being edited and deleted on your side and there are many other issues as well. I’m not sure how best to resolve them. Just like you, I don’t know what to do.
Because deletion is not unusual on this forum, at least I hope that the posts about me — especially ones that aren’t true — are deleted. Those hurt.
No double standard — Rebecca was wrong; the women in the audience gave appropriate criticism. Many women don’t see the conduct in the elevator as very problematic, and I think they deserve to be heard too.
Listen to the women means all of us, not just the ones you know and like.
It’s not a very good link though, is it? Not overly persuasive? He’s another white knight on his steed, come to rescue poor Steff from the evil Rebecca-dragon.
And you can not think that Elevator Guy’s conduct was problematic too. But it can be done without using the language Steff used and without the Rebecca bashing.
You’re really talking to the wrong people here. Here isn’t the problem. Really.
And now I’m off to bed.
I don’t think either is appropriate.
Not necessarily, no. But the effect of the language remains.
GT-Bluharmony, Something I see you and others saying over there is that Rebecca Watson is some kind of radical feminist, while you’re just an “equity” feminist. I don’t think there’s much basis for saying that about Watson, and not much reason to bring up the distinction. She’s just worried that the skeptical community is less open to women than to men, because of harassment and gendered insults. The goal of equal openness to women is one that any feminist would accept. What you might be doing is confusing what type of feminist she is with the issue of whether she’s engaged in fair play. An ordinary feminist who plays unfair is still just an ordinary feminist. As to the sexual interest vs. objectification thing. I agree, objectification might have been the wrong concept for her to bring up. Objectification involves looking at a person’s body as an object, and we have no idea whether EG was doing that. Probably a better contrast would have been sexual interest vs. sexual harassment. Stef McGraw called EG’s overture “sexual interest” and Watson was trying to say uh-uh, it was something different and more problematic. I can see her point, even if she used the wrong terms.
Rebecca’s impact on men who are sexist: men who are sexist find it objectionable to a woman saying a man’s propositioning her i a lift makes her uncomfortable. And sh has to keep quiet so as not to give sexist men a bad impression of women. That makes perfect sense. maybe all women should be told. Oh, I forgot, most of them have been told, lots and lots of times.
Blu, I’m not going to go through my own take on Rebecca and what she did wrong etc etc. I’ve done it, we’ve all done it. But it’s over the top. Anyone would think she really was a Nazi, a war criminal. It’s so stupid. Nothing she has done deserves the degree of punishment she has received. It’s long past time asking her politely to apologise; too much damage has been done. she is owed apologies by the ton.
Should have checked my two-fingered typing first. Sorry! In a rush because I didn’t mean to disappear so suddenly just now.
Why is the message that some women don’t see EG’s behavior problematic so important? Do these women demand to be propositioned when they’ve said they want to go to sleep? Who does it hurt if men are a bit more considerate of women’s stated wishes? What exactly was so controversial about “Guys, don’t do that”?
There are whole blogs dedicated to the bashing of Rebecca Watson and the character assasination has been going on for weeks now. Thousands of hateful comments, dozens of blog entries and YouTube videos. Can you honestly say it has nothing to do with sexism and misogyny and everything to do with Stef McGraw? Can you?
GT-Bluharmony, to be quite frank, this is utter bullshit.
You keep telling other people what they should do – e.g. Rebecca Watson shouldn’t have addressed a student from the podium, yet now you say that you don’t have the right to tell others what they should do, when they are on the same side as you. Also, while you are now criticizing the words they use, you have in the past applauded ERV for saying what “most of us have been simply dying to say”.
Seems to me that you’re saying one thing here, but saying something else elsewhere, and your behavior certainly indicates that we should presume that your words elsewhere are more true to nature.
@Jean — “Radical” was a term Dworkin wore with pride; she saw is as meaning those who take action and want change. This is not a bad thing. But I started using “gender” feminists for the same idea because I thought it was less divisive. It’s the same idea: patriarchy. Equity feminism is slightly different. I would put myself in the liberal equity feminist category, but not all of my views fit that label. I do think we need to be proactive, and I don’t think that equal opportunity is enough.
I was using basic labels to assist with a key distinction. There are many schools of feminist thought and you have to read the literature. An online blog is not enough. I’m on your side. I want sexism to stop.
http://sneerreview.blogspot.com/2011/08/rebecca-watson-gender-traitor.html
bluharmony said… How did I miss this before? Fantastic. What a shameless hypocrite.
What insult? Where have I insulted you? Unlike your comment which is nothing but an evasion and an insult.
@Herrta: Complaining about objectification while she objectifies others is fairly bad too. As I mentioned before one of the women in her calendars is pictured without a head — just the torso and legs.
So you rate the hostility of the criticism (‘disagree’ vs. ‘attack’) based on whether you agree with the substance of what is said? That is pretty much the definition of double standard.
And women who don’t see the guy’s conduct as problematic get to say that they probably wouldn’t have been disturbed by it. They DON’T get to say that Watson shouldn’t have been disturbed by it.
@I agree with Abbie about McGraw; I admire Abbie for going against the grain and providing a forum to discuss the issues. I’m not offended by gendered epithets — in fact, I think they’re harmless. But out of respect for people like the women posting here, I don’t use them. Read the entire thread and then come back to me. I’ve been consistent throughout. And yes, I’ve gotten frustrated — if on one would even look at the obvious, wouldn’t you be. Sorry, but you don’t have a leg to stand on.
GT Harmony, Yes, there are many schools of feminism (and I’ve taught feminist philosophy, so have a reasonably good grip on them!), but the distinctions are pretty irrelevant here. All feminists agree on Watson’s goal–making the skeptical community as open to women as it is to men. It doesn’t make her any special kind of feminist to have that goal. So–why all the criticism of the type of feminist she is? If there is legitimate criticism to be directed her way (and I agree that there is) it’s all about whether she’s been fair to others, not about her feminist principles. On the other hand, her fairness/unfairness is somewhat of an old issue, because at this point in time the shoe is on the other foot. At lot of the ERV-ers have been grotesquely unfair to her. They have shifted the attention from her errors to their own. They seem strategy-challenged, to be honest.
@Forbidden: no one said Rebecca shouldn’t be disturbed by it. In fact, it’s repeated multiple times everywhere that she’s entitled to her feelings. We were talking about how we’d feel. But that isn’t the issue. The issue is that Rebecca was wrong in classifying the conduct and speaking for all feminists, but she chose to criticize others anyway.
Maybe that woman didn’t want her photo to be identifiable. Do you have anything that suggests that it was done against her wishes? Because the thing with objectification AND sexualization, the problem with these phenomena, is that they are done in a one-sided way, reducing a person to a thing for sex while disregarding their personality.
@Jean: That’s a valid point and I appreciate that. I don’t agree with a lot of the concepts in “gender” feminism and they’re really fun to discuss. It wasn’t mean as an insult. But I do think sometimes feminists alienate men by being too strident. That’s just an opinion; it’s not a fact.
@Forbidden: I can’t answer that. I think the calendars are fine, but they may be sending the wrong message. People view her Rebecca as a hypocrite. I don’t think she’s the right person to be talking about feminism. She’s not well-informed.
I understand why all of you want to defend her, really, I do. And I think that’s a noble thing, but what she did wasn’t right.
Key point: feminist men already agree — it’s the others we need to reach. You can’t persuade people by offending them, and men don’t like to hear that they’re monsters or rapists when they’re not.
Wrong.
This is from the post that started this shindig. Not counting many many others, including your friends from ERV’s, who called her crazy, hysterical, etc., etc., for feeling nervous when a strange man hit on her in an enclosed space.
And some men clearly don’t want to hear there’s any sexism anywhere. That doesn’t mean we should keep quiet about it.
I must have missed that bit? When did Rebecca say I was a monster or a rapist?
GT, I asked you some questions at #996. Would you like to answer them?
And these people need to understand the difference between people freely expressing their sexuality and people being sexualized inappropriately and against their wishes. And explaining the difference to them is good work.
So, you assume everyone who’s siding with Watson is doing it out of some urge to defend her and not actually agreeing with her points? That’s rather unskeptical, per your definition.
GordonWillis:
I missed the bit where RW commited the crimes against humanity that justify the weeks long hatefest.
If women won’t say what makes them uncomfortable, how will men know? If sexist men ought not to be made unconcomfortable, how are they going to be told? Whose feelings matter most here? What’s the issue: men being comfortable with their behaviour or women feeling uneasy about it? And why should they feel uneasy? Everyone knows that we men are always nice and considerate.
Yeah, the feminazi bit. And having a smelly snatch: that’s so inconsiderate.
I’ve posted ways that it could have been said in the other thread.
It really doesn’t matter, Blu. She had a perfect right to say what she said, and plenty of us understood what she meant.
Actually, being “concerned” with the mere fact that Watson felt disturbed, in the same sentence as declaring that there was nothing wrong with whatever made her feel disturbed, is pretty much saying that Watson is wrong for feeling disturbed.
Look, I understand that you feel the same way as McGraw about being hit on, and that’s fine. That just doesn’t change the fact that McGraw said some wrong things.
No, but you’ve just suggested that Rebecca said that all men are monsters and rapists.
That’s not at all what “Schroedinger’ rapist” says. Have you read it, or did you just have someone summarize it for you?
I dare say, with so many people taking sides, that all sorts of people are saying all sorts of things. But Rebecca cannot be held accountable for what others have said, and to the extent that so much venom is being heaped on her it is a monstrous injustice to do so.
I have to go and teach, Blu. I really do think that you will be better off out of this. Go for a walk and clear your head. Then go and visit some friends and forget it.
There are a lot of rape victims who have stated they were triggered by the response that Rebecca got, too.
So it’s “disagreement” if the person complaining is on your side, and “attacking” if the person complaining isn’t. Good to know.
You asked on another blog whether there’s a difference between stereotyping and privilege; talk about a category error! Based on your comments there and elsewhere you don’t understand the concept of privilege, yet you keep attacking the misunderstanding you do have and trying to use it somehow to invalidate everything remotely related to the discussion.
Where does Rebecca say this? I just now skimmed her response to Dawkins. I’m not able to read it closely since I’m heading out the door, but I didn’t see anything that resembles this characterization. I could have missed it though. Blu, what is it that Rebecca said that gave you this impression?
This is what you saw fit to address? That the text’s name isn’t scientifically accurate? And counter to what you claimed, the text itself does not argue that men are both rapists and not rapists.
I understand the concept of privilege very well, I wanted to make a point. But I wasn’t allowed to because the thread was closed.
I’ve explicitly addressed the double standard issue higher up in the thread.
@Forbidden: First of all, why is this relevant? Second, everyone knows about the cat. Those who didn’t take the time to read it thought it meant that men were both rapists and not rapists, and didn’t get some of the good advice the article contained.
The title is offensive because everyone knows about Schrodinger’s cat.
Actually, if you interpret the wavefunction as a representation of our information about a system, it’s a perfectly good metaphor. But this is getting pretty far off the point, I think.
@Martin: It’s what people hear, not what is said that matters. I understand what you’re saying, but that’s not what people heard. And this goes to another point as well.
So it’s what Watson heard, not what EG said that matters? I thought you were arguing the exact opposite.
Oh bloody hell. I closed comments yesterday – I thought at first I’d forgotten, but then I remembered actually doing it. I didn’t check afterwards though. Maybe I closed the window before it had updated, I don’t know. Anyway – this is exactly what I didn’t want. I’m deeply uninterested in The Progress of GenderTraitor-bluharmony.
By the way bluharmony you said above that your integrity is on the line. No it isn’t. Nobody knows or cares who the hell bluharmony is. The integrity of some random nym who’s been cheering on ERV for several days is of no import at all.