I’ve been watching the video of the Pharyngula hangout yesterday. I’ve paused it at 38:45; so far it’s been all about Women in Secularism 2 and a little bit about the upcoming Dublin Empowering Women Through Secularism conference. Interesting conversation, and frustrating to watch, because I intended to participate but first there was a glitch with Google+ and then a Windows update crashed my computer twice so I had to do a restore, which took forever, so I never got there.

Nick Gotts is going to the Dublin conference. That’s good!

There’s a lot of discussion of how very unfortunate it is that the (huge amount of exceptionally) good stuff about the conference has been totally swamped by talk about the one bad part. It’s ironic that the one bad part was the work of the CEO of the organization hosting the conference. No, ironic isn’t quite the right word, is it. Incompetent? Treacherous? Never mind the attendees and speakers for the moment; it’s so unfair to the CFI staff. All their hard work, undermined by their boss, for…for what? I still, honestly, have no idea.

Well, part of this overshadowing is because the videos aren’t out yet. I did try. I did several hooray posts. Jason and Kate liveblogged. But…

Jadehawk pointed out that even the CFI website (I think she means the blog) did this – there’s nothing about the conference except Ron’s three posts. (I think Fidalgo reported on it, but in the daily roundup of news, not in a separate post.) If I’d been on the hangout I would have pointed out that the same is true of the RDF site – all it had about the conference the last time I looked was the same three posts by Ron. That’s a very bizarre choice. The conference really was not about Ron or his posts. It’s very peculiar to post those and nothing else – and by “peculiar” I mean “hostile.”

So how about some positive again. I paused it where I did because it was the end of an enthusiastic discussion of Rebecca Goldstein’s talk – how brilliant it was, how bowled over everyone was by it, how much it mattered. (See what I did there?)

It started because Nick Gotts asked Jadehawk about it – if she shared the enthusiasm he’d seen all around. Yes she certainly did. The idea of “mattering” connects with everything. PZ said it was a good example of why philosophy is good and why we need more of it, and that the “mattering” idea made a lightbulb go on for a lot of people.

Exactly. That’s why I was having that gesture-laden conversation with Dave Silverman: because we were talking about the relevance of mattering to how we talk to and about theists. He was enthusiastic about Goldstein’s talk in the same way everyone else was.

At the time, you see, Goldstein’s talk somewhat blunted the impact of Ron’s talk. It came later the same afternoon, and at the end of the afternoon, so on that day (or that evening), I think, the bad part hadn’t completely overshadowed the good. It was mixed. It was “North Korea” that tipped the balance.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

I’ve liked a lot of Wendy Kaminer’s writing. I’m Ok You’re Codependent is very sharp and amusing. Sleeping With Extraterrestrials was disapponting, I thought, because it was way too cautious and apologetic, but still it was of value.

I don’t like her new piece in the Atlantic on sexual harassment though. She’s very libertarian, so it’s predictable, but…I don’t like it. I don’t like the way it dismisses harassment that’s not violent.

In a joint letter to the University of Montana, (intended as “a blueprint” for campus administrators nationwide) the Justice Department (DOJ) and the Education’s Department’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) define sexual harassment as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” verbal or nonverbal, including “unwelcome sexual advances or acts of sexual assaults.” Conduct (verbal or non-verbal) need not be “objectively offensive” to constitute harassment, the letter warns, ignoring federal court rulings on harassment, as well as common sense. If a student feels harassed, she may be harassed, regardless of the reasonableness of her feelings, and school administrators may be legally required to discipline her “harasser.”

Note may be. Twice. Not is, not are, but may be. Well? Is that just obviously absurd? If a student feels harassed, she may be harassed? There’s such a thing as context.

They are also required to promulgate detailed policies parroting the DOJ/OCR definition of harassment, as well as procedures for reporting and prosecuting alleged offenses: “Federal government mandates unconstitutional speech codes at college and universities nationwide,” the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) accurately declares:

Among the forms of expression now punishable on America’s campuses by order of the federal government are:
• Any expression related to sexual topics that offends any person. This leaves a wide range of expressive activity—a campus performance of “The Vagina Monologues,” a presentation on safe sex practices, a debate about sexual morality, a discussion of gay marriage, or a classroom lecture on Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita—subject to discipline.

• Any sexually themed joke overheard by any person who finds that joke offensive for any reason.

• Any request for dates or any flirtation that is not welcomed by the recipient of such a request or flirtation.

The way that’s worded, the first two sound excessive, but I’m not sure I trust FIRE to be accurate about the wording. The last one though – yes, and? This isn’t something overheard or said to everyone, it’s a personal approach. People are allowed to object to some kinds of personal approach. People don’t have a “right” to ask strangers for sex.

It’s easy to understand why federal officials might believe they’re on the side of the angels. Their new “blueprint” on sexual harassment, detailed in the University of Montana letter, was occasioned by the University’s reported failure to address alleged assaults, on and off campus. The trouble is, officials have focused on stemming insults as well as assaults. They’ve adopted the popular, “progressive” belief that arguably offensive, unwelcome sexual speech is the moral equivalent of unwelcome, abusive sexual acts and a virulent form of discrimination.

Not the moral equivalent (I don’t think that’s a real belief, I think she made it up), but not necessarily trvial, either. Suppose it’s hundreds of insults every day? What then? Would Kaminer agree that that is a form of discrimination? I would hope so, but it doesn’t look that way.

Who will benefit from this system? Not educators who hope to foster critical thinking, not students seeking intellectual instead of bureaucratic experiences, not parents whose tuition dollars support unwieldy student life bureaucracies, and not those administrators who value academic freedom and the university’s traditional educational mission. The Obama administration’s bureaucratic dream is an educational nightmare. Who will benefit from this system? Equity consultants, for sure.

Ugh. What bullshit. Critical thinking does not depend on freedom to insult. Yes, certainly it depends on not treating everything as an insult, and on not treating disagreement and debate as an insult, but it does not depend on total limitless freedom to insult and degrade and harass. On the contrary – a “freedom” like that is inimical to critical thinking. People who feel beleaguered and attacked are not in a good state to do critical thinking. The people doing the harassing aren’t either.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

There was one bit late in the Fincke-Vacula conversation, toward the end, when Vacula got desperate to find diversity issues that his enemies had neglected, in order to demonstrate that…I don’t know what. It’s all just bullshit, because they forgot one? They’re just showing off and don’t actually mean a word of it? They say one thing but do another? I don’t know. Anyway he flailed around and then oh hai he found one. “Asians!” he exclaimed.

Asians?

Oh really?

Asians like the Bangladeshi atheists for instance? The ones addressed and greeted in that group photo before it was photoshopped for a “joke”? The ones disappeared from that photo for a “satire”? A “satire” that Vacula praised?

Or perhaps the famous novelist from Bangladesh who writes for this very blog network?

All the South Asian writers and activists I’ve published and written about perhaps, such as Tasneem Khalil, Meera Nanda, Gina Khan, Gita Sahgal.

Alexander Aan perhaps? I think he was mentioned here a few times.

Must try harder. Fijians? Laplanders? Ex-Amish vegans living in Palm Springs?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Via Feminist Law Professors – a student teacher is fired for being photographed in what looks very like a bathing suit top.

[Theresa] Illgen, 23, appeared in a front-page photograph in the Las Cruces Sun-News wearing a bra and appearing to motivate those who marched to educate students, and the public, about the issue of rape culture and victim blaming. The national march typically includes participants who dress in skimpy clothing who peacefully protest against excusing rape by referring to any aspect of a woman’s appearance.

“I didn’t know the picture would be published,” Illgen said.

What picture?

(image credit: Robin Zielinski/Sun-News, here)

You could see hundreds of women dressed like that on any popular beach. You can’t help seeing countless pictures of women dressed like that on advertising all over everything. So…why on earth was she fired? Because the garment covering her breasts is called a “bra” instead of a “bikini top”?

Hello, ACLU?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

According to a few sources (but only a few, so I’m not sure how reliable they are), El Salvador’s Health Minister approved a C-section for ”Beatriz” yesterday, a day after the Supreme Court ruled that she could not have a life-saving abortion.

The Health Department hasn’t given a day or time for when Beatriz will deliver the baby by Cesarean section, said Morena Herrera, a member of the Feminist Collective for Local Development, an organization that has been supporting Beatriz.

“She is going through all the medical exams to be ready for surgery,” Herrera said.

I hope it’s not too late.

H/t PatrickG.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Remember that photoshop I posted on the More documenting the harassment page last Saturday? The one taken from the photo Adam Lee took of us FTBers holding our signs of solidarity with the Bangladeshi atheists? That Reap Paden changed to signs spelling out our love for “Justin” [Vacula]? That Vacula reposted on Facebook?

Now Vacula has done a blog post about it; he’s that proud of it. That proud of erasing an important and (one would think) meaningful message to fellow atheists who are under attack in a theocratic country, for the sake of making a stupid, mean joke about people who dislike being harassed by Vacula.

He stole the photo, too. It’s not his to post just as it wasn’t Paden’s to alter and post. He posted it without attribution and without permission. It’s Adam Lee’s photo. That is not a nice thing to do to a fellow atheist and activist.

He titles the post “Don’t satirize feminists, but happily draw Mohammad?”

That’s stupid. The two are not comparable. I’m not Mohammed. Stephanie is not Mohammed. Maryam is not Mohammed. Adam Lee is not Mohammed.

I hosted one photoshopped satirical image of various feminists — including Ophelia Benson of the Freethought Blogs network — on my Facebook page because I found it light-hearted, humourous, and in good taste. A friend of mine, Reap Paden, had edited signs in the image to read “We <3 Justin” – what I thought was a humourous mild jab because, in part, many in the image do not love me and instead have written dozens of over-the-top blog posts about how much of a bad person I am.

That’s not true. The posts I’ve written about Vacula have been about his relentless harassment of me.

Notice how he singles me out even here.

He notes that there was some reaction.

The moral imperative proposed — that one ought to remove a satirical image merely because one claims offense — is most unreasonable and would consign everyone to silence on any given issue because anyone can claim offense. What matters, instead, I believe, is whether one’s claiming of offense is reasonable. If the claiming of offense is unreasonable, there should be no moral imperative for one to refrain from the mildest of satire. If it is not permissible to satirize feminists because people may claim offense and be hurt, why should it be permissible to satirize Mohammad?

See above. I’m not Mohammed. The rest of us are not Mohammed. ”Satirizing” powerless obscure individuals is not the same kind of thing as satirizing long-dead prophets of bossy totalizing religions.

In addition, altering someone else’s photograph of a serious attempt to express support for beleaguered atheists in another country, to make a stupid taunting “joke” – that too is not comparable to satirizing long-dead prophets of bossy totalizing religions.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Speaking of being thrown overboard…Greta has a pair of terrific posts on Ron Lindsay and Women in Secularism 2. One is on the content of his talk, the other is on the context.

From the first one – on the “shut up and listen” part.

This section has been addressed at length by many other writers. But this is the place where I’m discussing it, so I’m going to address it again.

I do not know anyone — and I mean anyone — who is a serious and respected leader or writer advocating for feminism within the atheist movement, who is telling men that they have nothing to contribute to the conversation about feminism, simply because they are men, and that all men must shut up about feminism permanently.

Let me be very clear. There is an important difference between saying, on the one hand, “Shut up for the next ten minutes, you’re dominating the conversation, please let other people talk,” or, “Shut up for the next ten minutes, it’s impossible for you to listen while you’re still talking,” or, “Shut up for the next ten minutes, the points you’re making have already been addressed a thousand times over, if you stop talking we’ll point you to the places where it’s been addressed,” or, “Shut up for the next ten minutes, the things you’re saying are coming from a place of privilege that you’re obviously not aware of, if you’ll listen for a minute we’ll try to explain how,” or, “Shut up for the next ten minutes, you’re doubling down on an indefensible position and are increasingly walking out on a limb that will be very difficult to walk back,” or even, “Please stop saying the particular things you’re saying, they’re harmful and demeaning and flat-out wrong, if you shut up for the next ten minutes we’ll explain why”… and saying, on the other hand, “Shut up permanently, you have nothing to contribute, we don’t want to hear anything you have to say about feminism, ever.”

Sarah Moglia and I tried really hard to tell him that when we talked to him that Sunday morning, but though he listened politely, he didn’t respond. I still don’t understand how he could think anyone meant “shut up permanently.” That’s such a caricature.

I gotta go; more later.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Katha Pollitt on El Salvador’s way with pregnant women.

Since 1998, El Salvador has had a complete no-exceptions ban on abortion,  promoted by the country’s powerful Catholic Church and passed with the votes of  legislators from the former left-wing movement FMLN—because if there’s one thing  right and left agree on, it’s that women’s lives are less important than  achieving political power. (Daniel Ortega made the same move in Nicaragua in a  successful bid for church support.)

There’s nothing quite like being thrown overboard by people you thought were allies. The cold water comes as such a shock…

Since the ban, the Central American Women’s network reports that over 600  Salvadoran women have been imprisoned for having abortions, including  miscarriages and stillbirths suspected of being the result of abortion. A word  to the wise: when US abortion opponents insist they would never put women on  trial for terminating a pregnancy, be skeptical.

Oh, I am.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Wut?

Well that’s what it says.

After a good amount of hoopla, Texas Governor Rick Perry is expected to quietly sign legislation allowing public schools to celebrate Christmas and other winter holidays plainly and explicitly without fear of lawsuits.

Why would he do it noisily? Do governors usually shout and scream while signing legislation?

Anyway, whatever. I’m not convinced there is much fear of lawsuits over celebrating Christmas and other winter holidays, but if you say so.

Naturally, not everyone in the Lone Star State is enthused about the the “Merry Christmas Bill” becoming law.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas has opposed the legislation.

“We hope administrators and teachers remain mindful that it is of utmost importance that it’s parents who teach their children about matters of faith, not public schools” said ACLU spokesman Tom Hargis, according to Austin FOX affiliate KTBC.

Hargis added that the ACLU will surely keep a close eye on Christmas festivities in public schools next school year.

Oh hahaha nobody cares what they say. Civil liberties indeed – who wants civil liberties?!

Aron Ra, Texas director of a group called American Atheists, strongly criticized Rep. Bohac as the bill was percolating through the Texas legislature, according to the Dallas Observer.

I like that “a group called American Atheists” – as if it were so obscure no one had ever heard of it. I don’t think that’s the case.

He wants teachers to randomly be able to proselytize their religious beliefs by being able to put up religious displays in their classrooms, unrestricted, without any fear of litigation.” Ra said. “But what happens when it’s not a Christian that’s doing it? What happens when it’s a pagan trying to do solstice or Saturnalia? They’re using the same damn tree and they can cite where it came from.”

Ra has also argued that the bill will marginalize students who aren’t Christian — an issue he sees as a huge problem even in the absence of the “Merry Christmas Bill.”

Ra’s organization, American Atheists, was established in 1963 and bills itself as “the premier organization fighting for the civil liberties of atheists and the total, absolute separation of government and religion.”

Damn right. That’s why I’m a member.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Ah. I did a little more exploring in the comments to see where we’ve heard from “Skep tickle/skeptixx” before. It’s interesting.

The first (that I’ve found) was one last October, in the post I did on the pathetic “parody” of Jesus and Mo that is “Peezus and O.” “skeptixx” popped in to say

Funny!  Thanks the for the link to their source; I’m enjoying looking through them all.

Don’t lose hope, Ophelia – maybe you’ll “get” to say something in the next one…

Yup that’s our “Skep tickle” – that’s her sneering contempt in a nutshell.

She was much more prolific on a post I did about the horrific Delhi rape and the broader subject of hatred of women. The two are, in fact, connected, and hatred of women is, in fact, an important subject. Pitchguest and other pit creeps showed up to scream that I was making it all about me, again, and “skeptixx” joined in with energy.

20:

Are you seriously trying to draw a comparison between a brutal, fatal, physical attack and criticisms of your [fill in the blank, including skepticism] as a blogger???

Get a grip.  It really isn’t about you and your self-absorbed concerns.

Not to mention that you seem to be revising history as you go:

In spite of all the stupid lies the hate-campaigners keep recycling about me that I’m so stupid and scaredy and radfem that I see innocent emails from supporters as threats for no earthly reason (the prediction that I might be shot is never mentioned), I actually don’t spook easily.

You don’t, hunh.  “Certain people should be ‘shot’” ring a bell? http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/11/certain-people-eh/

Alice did the reality check:

Hey Ophelia – I looked at this, and it actually *is* a reference to vaccinations. She and other pro-vaxxers at TAM were signing a Jenny McCarthy poster. Check out the other pics in that album.

And you replied:

Vaccination. That didn’t even occur to me. Are these people making me a little paranoid? Looks that way.

How about actually discussing what approaches might actually help achieve a goal of actually preventing rapes?  And, pro tip, coddling your precious ego isn’t one of those approaches.

26:

Your rapier intellect has skewered my arguments, Sally Strange!  How could I ever have thought:

1)  That Ophelia’s post, purportedly about “An iron rod in the woman’s body”, being >50% about herself…would suggest self-absorption on her part?

2)  That quoting the portion of Ophelia’s post about the “prediction that [she] might be shot” then linking back to her prior post in which she expressed concern about what she saw as a threat that she (?) might be shot, and quoting the portion in which it was revealed that it was just a play on words in Harriet Hall’s signature on an anti-vaxx poster, which others also signed, after which Ophelia admitted that maybe she was a little paranoid….would be help show that, at least in that example, Ophelia did react in a “scaredy” fashion, directly contradicting her claim that it’s a “stupid lie” to use “scaredy” to describe her?

3)  That skeptics acting like skeptics – you know, actually investigating people’s claims, comparing statements from now with those from the recent past, calling out things like false equivalence…would be welcomed at a “freethought” site?

4)  That a regular poster at FtB such as yourself, presumably one who considers himself or herself to be a feminist (though in fact I do not know your history or self-description)…would, apparently simply because I’m critiquing Ophelia’s statements, assume I’m male?

5)  That working for the past 20 years in women’s health, as I have, which has in fact meant not only using the bathrooms there and not only reading the pamphlets but in fact choosing which ones we’ll post, oh and also screening women for risk of intimate partner violence (IPV) and treating women who have been victims of IPV…would teach me a darned thing about IPV?  (Which the attack in India was not; that was stranger violence.)

Silly me.  I stand corrected (not).

Oh look – she “doxxed” herself in that last item.

29:

Mmm, I think I’ve seen this pattern before: form a circle, ignore the substance of the comments you don’t like, and start flinging ad hominems.  Tribalism for the win! 

Tribalism is it. What does she call the pit, then? Generous liberal internationalist universalism?

32:

Tell you what.  Anyone who is seriously interested in trying to prevent rape, how ’bout taking a look at this 2011 summary from the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (US):  Rape Prevention and Risk Reduction: Review of the Research Literature for Practitioners (or another similar resource if you know of one), then go ahead and propose some practical approaches.  You can use the writing skills you learned in 4th grade if that’s where you learned them, or you can bring subsequent education to bear if applicable.

The studies mentioned in it are probably from the US & other western countries; if you can find any literature that might be more pertinent to India, please do present it.

The National Resource Center on Domestic Violence may not know what they’re talking about, though; I don’t see that they list,  among the measures shown to reduce the risk of rape, any of the following: avoidance of signing anti-vax posters with puns involving the word “shoot” in case someone might misinterpret it, or photoshopping people’s heads onto posters (which I’ve never done, but I understand some people have done, and I admit to occasionally having laughed at), or creating parody twitter accounts, or even skeptically questioning people’s claims.

35:

@Stacy #30   Hahaha.  In a half-assed effort not to actually have to try to address the real-life problem, Stacy insults someone on-line.

@Sassafras #29:  That’s helpful.  I had heard about that one but hadn’t previously seen that post.  But seriously??  That’s a “prediction that [she] might get shot”?

Did you see the line that actually referred to some risk of her being “shot” in these communications which purportedly were warning her to stay safe?

I’m happy that PZ was not shot (gun or uppants camera) at GAC, but that gives me scant reassurance that you will *not* be shot either way in Las Vegas.

“Prediction” is “a statement of what will happen in the future.”  This is not a prediction.  This seems like someone trying to get Ophelia freaked out with what frankly looks like either tongue-in-cheek warnings, or paranoid warnings from someone who overheard a few words and made assumptions about what it meant.  And it worked; it freaked her out.  She believed enough not to go to TAM, yet she elected not to tell the police?

Yeah, I can see how that is analogous to a woman (and to a lesser degree her male friend) being savagely assaulted by strangers on a bus in India, and how it helps prevent situations like that from occurring in the future.

39:

Mmm.  Insults supplanting evidence-based arguments, or at least that’s what it looks like.

I don’t usually frequent FtB, in part because it’s so painful to see supposed skeptics acting like this.

But anyway, since we’re here, let’s recap a bit, shall we?

Bad Jim #33:  “No iron rod perforating a woman’s intestines could ever be as important as their most precious treasured grievances.”

- I hope that makes you feel better to say & think, m’dear.  If you’ve done some important work in women’s rights, women’s health, etc, I’d love to hear about it.

Ophelia in opening post: “It creeps me the fuck out that open boastful misogyny has become so popular and mainstream lately. I think it’s strange that the vocal boastful misogynists don’t worry about this.  … I think it’s strange that so many people think it’s good to foster a climate of ragey hatred.”

- Oh, she’s not talking about her own experiences?  My bad.  It sure sounded like it.  Whose experiences is she talking about, then?  And her claim that “open boastful misogyny has become so popular and mainstream lately” – does she mean universally, or does she mean directed at herwomen she knows?  Does she mean since Elevatorgate, or is she talking about a different time frame?

Let’s move on.  So, what do you all propose to reduce rape?

Ophelia #2: “Rapists need to stop attacking women.”

- Great idea.  How do you propose taking steps to achieve that?  Like, exactly what steps would you propose?  What has been tried so far, and what evidence is there that it works?

Rodney Nelson #11 “We need to change the rape culture found throughout the world. We need to make rape as socially, as politically and as morally unacceptable as murder is.”

- Just an aside, the woman in India was raped and murdered (though the murder occurred as part of the rape; hard to know how she & her friend would have fared if rape were considered unacceptable by her attackers but other crimes were still on the table).

- “Change the rape culture found throughout the world.”  Presumably, one might go to the countries with the lowest per capita rates of rape to learn what the secrets to their success are, right?  (Understanding that under-reporting seriously impacts the official rates of this crime.)  So, you could try a site like this (hey, look!  I can use Google!): Rapes (per capita) by country to find Egypt, Armenia, and Azerbaijan as the 3 with the lowest (reported) rates.  Canada and Japan also have low rates.

- Of course, to find out where your efforts could best be used, you’d want to look at the top of the list.  Congo isn’t on this list but in 2012 was said to have the highest rate in the world.  Lesotho is at the top here, followed distantly by New Zealand, Belgium, and Iceland.  So you’ll want to pack your back & off you go to the Congo, Lesotho, New Zealand, Belgium, and Iceland, to start implementing the changes you think will work!  (Whether or not you stop by Egypt, Armenia, and Azerbaijan on the way to take notes.)

SallyStrange #19 As for what will actually help bring down rape rates?   Well, according to research, the most successful rapists are repeat rapists who use drugs, alcohol, and threats of violence (rather than actual violence) to rape. They usually rape acquaintances too. Why? Because … everyone … thinks that date rape isn’t really rape because the woman must have secretly been “asking for it.” That means no more victim blaming, like Abdul was doing here. You can help out by criticizing Abdul*, who is actively working AGAINST decreasing rape rates, rather than attacking Ophelia, who is working FOR decreasing rape rates.

*Abdul Alhazred  #1 proposes arming women & repeats this in #6.  (His prison rape bit was weird.)

- All right, so we can help out by criticizing someone who is proposing deterrence by arming women.  That’s the first practical step mentioned so far.  Even if we extend it to criticizing everyone who proposes this step – presumably a relatively small number of people – how has that actually helped?

- Oh, and we can stop making any critical comments about Ophelia’s posts, because that is counterproductive (and might end up raising rape rates?  Hmm)

What did that awful slimy troll skeptixx suggest in this thread, related to rape rates? #16  “How about actually discussing what approaches might actually help achieve a goal of actually preventing rapes?”

-  Well, we have an answer as above: attack Abdul!  That’ll apparently feel useful, even if it does fuck-all to actually reduce anyone’s risk of rape.

#28 “Anyone who is seriously interested in trying to prevent rape, how ’bout taking a look at this 2011 summary from the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (US): Rape Prevention and Risk Reduction: Review of the Research Literature for Practitioners (or another similar resource if you know of one), then go ahead and propose some practical approaches. …if you can find any literature that might be more pertinent to India, please do present it.”

*crickets*

I don’t suppose anyone is interested in listing the 3 general approaches to rape prevention, and for extra credit describing the potential upsides and downsides of each, and what evidence there is to support the efficacy of each general approach?

41:

How would that make you self-righteous?  Wouldn’t it be something to celebrate?  I mean, isn’t the goal to actually help bring about changes in the world (understanding that most change occurs gradually, over years, through the efforts of many people)?

Don’t worry, there’s probably still time.  Perhaps there’s some volunteer work you could do that would help move society in this direction.  If you’re male (as your ‘nym suggests), how about joining forces with a group like this one: http://www.mencanstoprape.org/ ?  Maybe going into high schools to talk to adolescent males, help instill an understanding of rape culture and practical tips to combat the messages they get from society.

Or, no less involved but on a more individual level, maybe being a Big Brother to a boy who might benefit from your positive influence.

It’s cool that she lectures us on how to do good things while she does good things by whipping up frothing rage at me at the slime pit. She’s an example to us all.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Bastards.

El Salvador’s Supreme Court has said no. No abortion for Beatriz; she has to die, because she’s pregnant.

Beatriz is carrying an anencephalic fetus, which means it has no brain and is only expected to survive at maximum a few hours after birth, even if she carries it to full term.

Beatriz has lupus, worsened by a kidney malfunction, and it is very dangerous for her to be pregnant.

“The doctors are saying it’s very critical because the lupus may be reactivated and if the lupus is reactivated it is very dangerous for her health,” [her lawyer] added.

She is now 26-weeks pregnant, and every day it becomes more risky for her to be pregnant and have an abortion at such a late stage.

Bastards. Fiends. Demons.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

A small thing, but annoying. People who say “I completely condemn any harassment and abuse” – and then follow up quickly with a much more detailed and enthusiastic condemnation of whatever it is that you, the object of abuse and harassment, might possibly decide to say at some point in the future if your nerves are shredded and there is no lemonade in the fridge.

One thing that’s annoying about that is the fact that the people who say it never actually seem to do this condemning of harassment and abuse out loud. Or in public. Or in places where people who are engaging in harassment and abuse might potentially see it. Or in places where people who are engaging in harassment and abuse would for certain see it. These people-who-say seem to say it to themselves, and then swell a bit with admiration for their own rectitude and good taste when it comes to hobbies. They never seem to say it anywhere useful when you, the object of abuse and harassment, could use a little backup or support or solidarity.

They seem to want credit for it all the same, though.

You know what? They’re not getting it. I don’t give a fuck if they condemn harassment and abuse inside their own heads. That doesn’t do me one god damn bit of good. If they’re saying it just to get it out of the way before they get down to telling me off for being so harassable and abusable – well -

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

About me. Posted on Michael Nugent’s blog yesterday.

No way am I telling you my name

May 28, 2013 at 9:41 pm

How lovely.  Your “healing the rift” effort required a sharing of email addresses at least one of which has been distributed to Ophelia Benson, who, as I type this, is gleefully doxxing an atheist woman who’s not ‘out’ in her real-life community.  Well, she is now.  Revenge for “talking shit” about Ophelia.  And the “talking shit?”  You can go see it for yourself.  The woman asked Ophelia if she really thought Justin Vacula  was attending the conference in Dublin specifically to “stalk her.”

And Ophelia Benson has gotten her revenge.  But that’s nothing.  Earlier this week she refused to take down another woman’s private post which Ophelia had re-posted, even after the woman told her it endangered her life by exposing her private information to her mentally ill and armed ex-husband and begged her to remove it.  Nope, said Ophelia, not taking it down.  That’s the revenge for “talking shit”.   Fortunately Ophelia was shamed into removing it the next day, but what damage was already done?

I’d ask for a refund to the Dublin convention but honestly I don’t know if you’re in on this or not.  Did you set up the whole thing to obtain private information for the doxxers?

So keep my money.  I won’t be attending this or any other conference that welcomes the serial doxxers.  I’m including Myers since he’s been talking about his plans to out a gay man with kids for having the temerity to warn Jen McCreight that she was posting information that identified her location. How horrible of him!  His warning to Jen had all personal info removed.  Her own post didn’t, hence the warning.  And he’s getting the punishment.

These people are vile,  dangerous to woman and dangerous to marginalized men and dangerous to the atheist community.  I didn’t know who the bad guys and good guys were in this so-called “rift” but I sure do now.  Do you?

1) How lovely.  Your “healing the rift” effort required a sharing of email addresses at least one of which has been distributed to Ophelia Benson

No. No email addresses have been “distributed” to me. “Skep tickle” gave me her email address by commenting here – commenting to tell me to “get help” for my “paranoia.”

2) who, as I type this, is gleefully doxxing an atheist woman

No. I was not “doxxing” her. I did not “dox” her. That’s an outright lie.

3) who’s not ‘out’ in her real-life community

Wrong. Yes she is out in her real-life community. She is on the board of an atheist organization in her real-life community, under her real name. That is being out. Number 3 is another outright lie.

4) Well, she is now.  Revenge for “talking shit” about Ophelia.

No. Two more lies. She is not out now, so there is no such revenge. If I had outed her, it still wouldn’t be revenge; it would be denying her the ability to trash me in public with no consequences to her reputation. It would be denying her the ability to protect her reputation in the act of damaging mine.

5) And the “talking shit?”  You can go see it for yourself.  The woman asked Ophelia if she really thought Justin Vacula  was attending the conference in Dublin specifically to “stalk her.”

No. She told me to get help for my paranoia. It’s right here.

Please get some professional psychological help.  I’m serious.  Paranoia seems to be consuming you.

That’s the whole of her first comment. Under the circumstances – two years of nonstop harassment by her friends at the slime pit – that’s a deliberately offensive provocation.

6) Earlier this week she refused to take down another woman’s private post which Ophelia had re-posted

No. It was not a private post. It was a tweet. I didn’t re-post it; I did a screen grab of it and posted that, on a page where I document a tiny sample of the harassment I get. The tweet was about me, obviously. Katie Graham (the tweeter in question) made her Twitter account private long after that.

7) even after the woman told her it endangered her life by exposing her private information

No. The tweet exposed no private information at all, and Graham was commenting here as Graham (while the name on her tweet was just some random initials). Graham’s comment here itself gave private information that the tweet did not expose. The tweet exposed nothing.

8) to her mentally ill and armed ex-husband

No. She mentioned her mentally ill mother, and then mentioned a gun. She didn’t say her mother was armed.

9)  and begged her to remove it

No. She peremptorily asked if I was going to remove it, now that she had made her account private (which I, not surprisingly, hadn’t known).

10) Nope, said Ophelia, not taking it down.  That’s the revenge for “talking shit”.

No. It wasn’t revenge. I didn’t like being more or less ordered to remove the tweet in this way, and she gave no explanation whatever of how the tweet could have anything to do with her mother or anyone else finding her or harming her, and I could see for myself that it contained no information about her at all – not her name, not her location, nothing.

11) Fortunately Ophelia was shamed into removing it the next day, but what damage was already done?

No. I was not shamed. After a short exchange she apologized for being so peremptory and explained that having made her account private she simply wanted to see that tweet gone. Fine; I took it down. No damage whatsoever was done. The tweet contained no information about her at all.

11 lies in two paragraphs. That’s an impressive count.

I emailed Nugent to tell him about the comment full of lies. So far he’s done nothing about it.

Update: He did remove it not long after I posted this.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The New York Times reports on the Whistleblowers.

Although they know they could face repercussions, they have banded together to push the new pope to clean house and the American bishops to enforce the zero-tolerance policies they adopted more than a decade ago.

The group began organizing quietly nine months ago without the knowledge of their superiors or their peers, and plan to make their campaign public this week. Most in the steering group of 12 have blown the whistle on abusers in the past, and three are canon lawyers who once handled abuse cases on the church’s behalf. Four say they were sexually abused as children.

The story links to a 2002 Times article that Sister Sally Butler mentioned in that On the Media story, and that I made a note to look for. It’s about the abusing priests that she knew in Brooklyn.

The nuns say they have made their allegations public because they resent the diocese’s secrecy and what they consider its inadequate action. The diocese said it handled everything fairly, that it had no responsibility to inform the nuns, and that it wanted to contact the victim, but that he never came forward. And following its policy and the usual practice in other dioceses, it did not contact law enforcement officials involving reports of abuse long ago.

The case, and others, shows the tension between church officials who say they are handling the cases fairly and conscientiously, and victims and others who say the church is mostly interested in keeping the abuses quiet.

Statute of limitations; that’s all they care about, Butler told Gladstone.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The other day On the Media had a segment talking to a Catholic nun, Sally Butler, who is part of a group who founded Whistleblowers. Guess what that’s about.

It was interesting, what she said. The three priests she and the other nuns worked with, in housing projects in Brooklyn, all molested the children. She thought Bishop Daly would take care of it, but no; to this day she has never met him. They got to see an underling of the bishop’s, Otto Garcia.

Butler: And we discovered that he and his lawyers were not at all alarmed, or surprised.

Brooke Gladstone: They asked about the statute of limitations.

Butler: [with emphasis] All they cared about: the dates. And that was a shock to us; we couldn’t believe it.

They went back, with the mother of two boys who were molested. One of them, in an attempt to stop the abuse, set a fire – and the priest sent them both to reform school and she never got her kids back. You can hear Gladstone gasp at that point.

The bishops would like to dismiss the whole thing because they provided therapy.

The new policy on child welfare - they pay attention to it according to their own whim. They don’t answer to anyone but the pope.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Via Mona Eltahawy on Twitter – a Saudi writer urges Tweeps to sexually harass women to make them go the hell back home where they belong.

A Saudi writer has urged his Twitter followers to sexually molest women hired to work as cashiers in big grocery stores, the latest backlash from conservatives who want to roll back limited social and economic reforms launched in the world’s leading oil exporter.

Abdullah Mohamed al-Dawood, who writes self-help books including one called The Joy of Life, has stirred fierce debate this week via the internet microblogging service with the use of the hashtag #harass-female-cashiers, to press for Saudi women to be forced to stay at home to protect their chastity.

That’s great, isn’t it? Assault them so that they will stay home to avoid being assaulted. The alternative of course would be to not assault them, which would have the same effect and would allow women to leave home and do things and be useful – but apparently Abdullah Mohamed al-Dawood didn’t think of that.

It’s quite similar to what I get told. (But much worse. Yes I know. It’s much worse. But the logic is the same and the motivation is the same and they both suck. Ok?) If you don’t like being harassed you should just stop writing. Well, that would be one way of dealing with it, but it would mean stopping writing, and I don’t fucking want to. It’s possible that Saudi women, like me, want to choose for themselves whether they go out or stay home, rather than being forced into it by people who torment them.

#harass-female-cashiers #harass-female-bloggers #harass-female-writers

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Chris Moos pointed me to an article in the Guardian yesterday on the complications of trying to make policy on gender segregation.

Following the March event that upset some students at UCL, the university banned the IERA from campus. The vice-provost, Rex Knight, points to the form of words agreed by UCL that is now sent to anyone wishing to book rooms on campus. While enforced segregation will not be permitted, UCL states that “it is acceptable for individuals attending  events to choose to sit with members of their own gender. If individuals attending an event wish to segregate themselves on a voluntary basis, it is not acceptable for other members of the audience to compel them to mix, and to do so may constitute harassment.”

But that is enforced segregation. It means that other members of the audience are not allowed to sit in a segregated area, so hey presto, there is your enforced segregation again. You can’t do both. You can’t say it’s voluntary but then in the next breath say that other members of the audience have to stay away. The statement tries to pretend otherwise by phrasing that as “to compel them to mix” but that’s not honest. It’s not about grabbing someone’s arm to try to compel her to sit elsewhere, it’s about sitting in a “segregated” area. Naughty UCL to be so cagey about it.

There’s also the social pressure aspect, as Muslim student Razana Abdul makes clear.

This might sound like a reasonable compromise, but Abdul points out that voluntary self-segregation has serious limitations, most importantly for Muslim women like herself who may feel it is impossible to go against the flow. “If you don’t want to be segregated, there’s social pressure. I do actually regret not standing up and going and sitting in the men’s section as a form of protest.” For mixed groups [at the UCL event] there were just two rows in a huge auditorium made available for “couples”. Abdul says anyone choosing to sit there would have been very obviously rejecting the “norm” being imposed. “We’d look like the evil ones, choosing to sit there in the middle,” she explains.

Universities, she says, are anxious not to “discriminate against Muslim people’s practices, but this is a minority of Muslims. I’m a Muslim, an Asian woman, and I felt intimidated.”

But then the Islamists come back with the opposite objection.

It’s a good point, agrees Knight, but it is a view that university senior management has to hold in balance with others. “I was contacted by other female Muslim students who said they’d felt very upset that some male students had tried to sit with them,” he says. “One would hope that common sense and good behaviour would prevail. We are making our view clear to organisers that no pressure should be made to ‘voluntarily’ segregate.”

I think that upsetness is bullshit. Those students are at a university. They must have to sit with men all the time. London isn’t Jeddah, and women in London and at a major London university just don’t have the ability to stay away from men at all times. Making a fuss about it at one event looks like bullshit; theocratic bullshit.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

If you’re in London June 11 there’s a thing you can go to. (Funny how much I advertise events in London, isn’t it. I don’t know – I have contacts there. I see stuff.)

Multiculturalism and Child Protection – Sharia Law and Other Failures

London School of Economics, STC.S75 in St. Clement’s Building, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE at 6 p.m.

Anne-Marie Waters and Baroness Cox will be speaking about their newest report on the state of children’s rights in Britain. The talk is going to be chaired by Professor Eileen Munro, CBE and review the effects of state multiculturalism on the matter of child protection in Britain.

Anne-Marie Waters and Baroness Cox say that the report will show that a multicultural approach, adopted by local authorities and other public authorities, to child protection is placing children in danger and creating parallel …societies.  Furthermore, the talk is going to topicalise sharia tribunals and their increasing authority in the issue of child custody, questioning the impact this has, and is likely to have, on the equal protection of children regardless of race or ethnicity.

Anne Marie Waters is spokesperson for the One Law for All Campaign. She campaigns against Sharia and religious Laws as she believes they represent a sacrifice of the rights of women in the name of legal and cultural relativism. She is a council member and campaigner for the National Secular Society, and campaigns more broadly for gender and race equality. She also writes and speaks on the importance of trade unionism, democracy, and Government and public sector accountability.

Baroness Cox is a cross-bench member in the House of Lords. She also is the founder and CEO of an organisation called the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust (HART). She has campaigned for humanitarian causes, particularly relating to disability, women’s rights and children’s rights.

Eileen Munro is currently Professor of Social Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science. In June 2010, the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, asked Professor Munro to conduct an independent review to improve child protection in England. Her final report was published in May 2011 and contained fifteen recommendations, all of which were subsequently accepted by the government. For services to children and families, Professor Munro received a CBE in the New Year’s Honours 2012.

Please find more information on this event on the LSE public events page.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Objection, your honor.

Yesterday, when lecturing me on how I should put up with the bullying she and her friends dish out every day, “Skep tickle” replied to my objection that it’s easy for her because she hides behind a nym.

Some people on both “sides” of “the rift” do know my RL name and where I live, for what that’s worth.  I maintain semi-anonymity because of my job, as do many atheists, including (presumably) some of your regular commenters.

That implies that she hides behind a nym because she’s an atheist. That’s not true. She’s on the board of an atheist group under her own name.

So why does she hide behind a nym then? Well it’s obvious, isn’t it. She hides her identity when she’s engaging in harassment and bullying, and she does that because she doesn’t want people to know what a vicious hobby she has. She’s ashamed of it, or if she’s not ashamed of it, she at least realizes that other people would think what she does is shameful. I know that’s what I think.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)