erv

Dawkins never fails to be the most brilliant person ever.

I'm so happy we read from one of his books as the 'reading' at my wedding.

Posted by: Rayshul | July 18, 2011 11:36 PM

I'd be more impressed if RD avoided the issue completely. His comments on the issue were kind of out of no where to begin with, to the point that many wondered if it was an impersonator.

That being said, his follow up was as best as could be expected....IE, shut up. A rare skill. One that I'm definitely lacking.

Posted by: AbnormalWrench | July 19, 2011 12:05 AM

Good for Richard, I'm glad he did that. But you do realize that this was not a "follow up" to Rebeccapocalypse, having been planned for a very long time in advance.

Of course, I hear he has access to a tardis, so maybe ...

Posted by: Greg Laden | July 19, 2011 12:17 AM

The first Richard Dawkins book that I read was The God Delusion, but I was an atheist long before then. I kind of figured it out on my own when I was about 12- it was pretty obvious that all religion was a load of crap. Thing is, very rarely would you find anyone on British television saying as much. We had Songs of Praise- a Sunday afternoon staple in which the BBC would broadcast various church choirs around the country; we had "Thought of the Day" on BBC Radio, in which a member of the clergy would relate some asinine biblical parable, which, I suppose, was meant to sound poignant and make us relate our everyday lives to that of scripture. But no-one when I was growing up, it seemed, would publicly renounce all of that crap and speak up for those of us who didn't believe a fucking word of it. No-one, that is, apart from Richard Dawkins.

I never knew his name, or what he did, or who he was, really, but as I was growing up in the 90s I would occasionally catch glimpse of this guy on the telly talking smack about religion. It really was very exciting- whenever I saw this rather handsome grey-haired chap on the box I would immediately stop what I was doing and pay full attention to the TV: "there's that guy again! The one who makes my hair stand on end by saying exactly what my still-developing teenage mind is thinking! The guy who sits on panels on Saturday afternoon talk shows and tells the mild-mannered bishop that his religion is a load of complete wank. On television!" I never really knew who Dawkins was before The God Delusion came out, but he was, for a long time, the only guy on British TV who you could trust to badmouth religion, and for that he was already a hero of mine, even if only for those short, intermittent bursts when he would occasionally be invited on-air.

Dawkins has been a tireless campaigner for rational thought for many decades, and it has been frustrating in the extreme to watch so many so-called fellow rationalists absolutely berating him over the past month or so- really having a go at him- and all because he doesn't think that asking a girl for coffee is the Crime of the Century. As ERV has pointed out, actions speak louder than words, and Dawkins has done more to help women achieve equality than all of the petty excuses for feminists that have been on his case put together.

Posted by: Mr. DNA | July 19, 2011 12:42 AM

Wotcha.
I remember seeing Prof. Dawkins back in "the day": he used to give The Christmas Lectures in Great Britain, on that television they have over there. Yeah, that´s right, Christmas day, the family fully coma´d, not yet time for The Great Escape, and there´s this gent giving some interesting chat to a room full of folk. Met him briefly years later... front line of the culture wars and still a lovely chap.

Must say, I´ve been enjoying your blog; as others have pointed out, this Twatson-malarkey has at least helped me find some great read, sorting the wheat from the Twat... if you´ll permit.

Posted by: Munkhaus | July 19, 2011 1:10 AM

Jusicar, thanks for speaking up for ERV. But my "follow-up" comment was responding to Mr Wrench. (Or Ms. Wrench as the case may be). I was probably a bit unclear.

Richard has a mixed relationship with feminism which I think comes from a little problem with the whole priv thing. Not occurred to him that there were female science authors that could have been included in his anthology, etc. His comments on PZ's blog were unconscionable. But I don't think anyone "on that side" (give me a break please) vilifies him, and he deserves credit for having his foundation cover day care. If you'll remember the coup that happened on his site a year or so ago, he does have a track record of spewing out unconsidered prose that bites him later. Maybe he should try blogging for a while.

And, frankly, Rebecca deserves a little more respect. Adults can respectfully disagree and use a person's name in unmangled fashion.

Posted by: Greg Laden | July 19, 2011 1:19 AM

Your comment "The non-response this move has gotten, the stunned silence from the True Feminists mirrors that of the duped Evangelicals before. Stricken dumb by being too dumb to understand what just happened. Its hysterical." is completely insincere. I was the first person to tweet how happy I was when Dawkins made that announcement. And Ashley F. Miller (whose tweet you used) was one of those "True Feminists" (your words, not ours) who was very critical of Dawkins too.

Not to mention after the announcement, I personally went up to him during the Speaker's reception, shook his hand, and told him how thankful I was about the funding. We had a very friendly conversation. And I'm including it in my post about TAM, which isn't done yet because I spent today recovering from my sleep deprivation and, you know, going back to work.

Please don't take a good thing and use it to spit in our faces. It's immature.

Posted by: Jen | July 19, 2011 1:40 AM

Like #3 AbnormalWrench said, I too wondered was it the REAL Richard Dawkins having a go at "Whining Muslima"? Does he really not know his audience and remember that his mission statement is "to alleviate human suffering"? He simply wouldn't recognize "Whining Muslima's" function of being vulnerable...whether on the blog, in the elevator, or behind the burka in Saudi Arabia.

It sounded like the kind of thing blurted when one is irritable and over-reactive. Maybe when he comes back from vacationing in Jackson Hole we can have the old Dawkins back? He's a hero of mine too but even being a genius doesn't preclude one being impulsive, naiive or plain wrong.

Posted by: AnthropicConstance | July 19, 2011 3:25 AM

Richard Dawkins is a big name, and quite frankly, I think he has done more concrete things in support of gender equality than Rebecca Watson is even capable of doing (this isn't a slight on Rebecca Watson, Dawkins simply has an enormous audience).

So ERV is absolutely correct, when RadFem ideological purists delight in deliberately misunderstanding and misconstruing Dawkin's words, he simply. Stops. And acts.

After all, what did Dawkin's actually say that the purity zealots have attacked?

Well, in a thread where people were taking an event that Watson practically shrugged off as (to paraphrase), hey, that was a bit much, could you not? and 'elevating' it to she was violated, almost raped, rapey behavior, extreme misogyny, Dawkins dropped a typically rhetorically brilliant (again, to paraphrase) "get some fucking perspective, stop belittling actual misogyny, every act that makes you uncomfortable isn't rape" to the let's be honest - nuttier, members of Pharangula and elsewhere.

His detractors have of course pretended he was saying the exact opposite of what he was saying by pretending it was written in response to Watson (and Watson of course ate up the opportunity to pretend the same) to stop her whining, with him being set up as the privileged not who isn't even trying to empathise, of course, ignoring the fact that Dawkins has been the victim of sexual abuse).

I am a Dawkin's fanboy, for very good reason. He makes sense, the other side comes across as petty, wrong, character assassins.

Well played, Professor!

Posted by: Peter | July 19, 2011 3:50 AM

Thanks to linking to my blog with the word 'Awesome'. :)

Posted by: Podblack | July 19, 2011 4:35 AM

This is good news, but I really wish you hadn't used it to reheat a pot of shit

Posted by: insignificant | July 19, 2011 5:15 AM

Greg @10: "And, frankly, Rebecca deserves a little more respect. Adults can respectfully disagree and use a person's name in unmangled fashion. "

Not really, she doesn't. In what way would she deserve anything but contempt? She' famous for, well, being famous. There's nothing to her, appart from her ability to repeat what more prominent and educated figures of the skeptic movement have said. She deserves as much respect as a televangelist. Person's name unmangled? I don't see you defending DaveTard, Unibrow Luskin or Bill Dumbsky. Is it, like, double standards?

Jen @12"Your comment "The non-response this move has gotten, the stunned silence from the True Feminists mirrors that of the duped Evangelicals before. Stricken dumb by being too dumb to understand what just happened. Its hysterical." is completely insincere. I was the first person to tweet how happy I was when Dawkins made that announcement. And Ashley F. Miller (whose tweet you used) was one of those "True Feminists" (your words, not ours) who was very critical of Dawkins too.

Not to mention after the announcement, I personally went up to him during the Speaker's reception, shook his hand, and told him how thankful I was about the funding. We had a very friendly conversation. And I'm including it in my post about TAM, which isn't done yet because I spent today recovering from my sleep deprivation and, you know, going back to work.

Please don't take a good thing and use it to spit in our faces. It's immature."

Because it's all about you. And Ashley. I can't even start to comprehend how you managed to have a friendly chat with that disgusting mysoginist pig, rich old white priviledged man. Must have been hell for you!

Posted by: Phil Giordana, FCD, aka Schroedinger's Dog | July 19, 2011 5:43 AM

Dawkins is a class act really. Sure, he's a privileged eminent white heterosexual rich male, and that's terrible. But what I admire is that he did not apologise just to stop people calling him names. Instead, he ignored all the rubbish and put his critics to shame by performing an act that actually helps. Like his 'Muslima' comment; puts everything in perspective!

Posted by: Notung | July 19, 2011 6:22 AM

>mfw the Twatsonites are going to have to throw their rationalization hamsters back into full gear after Dawkins fucks their narrative right in the ass and stretches it wide a goatse.

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/6/20/snicker128584305790041533.jpg

Posted by: TylerD | July 19, 2011 6:26 AM

A cheap ad hominem like changing the name of someone you disagree with from Watson to "Twatson", and supportive comments from the likes of Justicar, who makes lunatics like WW look like a sane intellectual, are making me think that I should take ERV off my bookmarks.

I can't even start to comprehend how you managed to have a friendly chat with that disgusting mysoginist pig, rich old white priviledged man.

Do you really want to be on the side of that guy, Abbie ?

Posted by: Rorschach | July 19, 2011 6:38 AM

Sorry, but I can't take anyone seriously who thinks that calling one's opponent "Twatson" is the height of witty repartée. Or who is so insistent on wilfully misunderstanding the issues underlying "Elevatorgate", and strawmanning (or strawwomanning) those on the other side of the debate.

This whole fiasco has strengthened my lack of interest in the organized "atheist movement". I was pissed off already that much of the "atheist movement" still seems to take Sam Harris seriously, despite the fact that he's an apologist for torture and imperialist warfare with a long history of hate-driven inflammatory rhetoric against Muslims and Islam. (And extremist Islamophobes like Pat Condell, who are even worse than Harris, are still treated as though they were intellectually respectable in some atheist circles.) Dawkins and Hitchens, though not as bad as Harris, are also guilty of contributing to anti-Muslim prejudice. Given that Muslims are an intensely-oppressed and marginalized minority in both Western Europe and the US, and a favourite target of the far right (who use anti-Islam rhetoric as a convenient cover for their anti-Asian racism and xenophobia) it should be obvious that when privileged white male atheists, a la Harris, make stupid comments like "Western civilization is at war with Islam", they're making things worse, not better.

In the wake of Elevatorgate, it also seems that parts of the atheist blogosphere (with the honourable exceptions, thankfully, of Pharyngula and Greta Christina) are intent on defending Dawkins' idiotic sexist comments to the hilt. The amount of casual contempt for Ms Watson's feelings and experiences (and those of other women who have experienced harassment or unwelcome/creepy advances) is breathtaking. The attitude in some circles seems to be "But we can't be sexists! We're enlightened progressive atheists who reject religious patriarchy!" News flash: sexism isn't just a product of religion, and the absence of religion doesn't mean sexism will magically disappear from a community. Sexism is much more deeply ingrained in our culture than that, and atheists are just as capable of being sexist idiots as religious people are.

I'm an atheist, because I don't see any convincing reason to believe in any gods. But my atheism isn't all that important to me, any more than my lack of belief in fairies or astrology is important to me. On the other hand, social justice and gender equality are important to me; and blog posts like this are working against those goals.

Posted by: Walton | July 19, 2011 6:59 AM

Not really, she doesn't. In what way would she deserve anything but contempt? She' famous for, well, being famous. There's nothing to her, appart from her ability to repeat what more prominent and educated figures of the skeptic movement have said

It's morons with an axe to grind like you who make me give up on this blog recently, that and the fact that Abbie doesn't seem to mind to have dimwitted fools like yourself speak for her. Rebecca Watson deserves nothing but contempt ? O rly ? Because some random internet loser says so on a blog ? Does anyone really deserve "nothing but contempt"? Well, I disagree, I think we can have different opinions,and god knows the atheist and skeptic community is champion in that, but we should at least be able to listen to each other's arguments without making "nothing but contempt" statements.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 19, 2011 7:02 AM

Mao was an atheist. Do you really want to be on the side of that guy?

You're clearly just as dimwitted as Phil Giordana.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 19, 2011 7:06 AM

I think he's best addressed by you as Mr. Schroedinger's Dog. One doesn't want to be too familiar out of the gate as it's presumptuous.

Yes, I'm dimwitted. Notably though, I rose to the height of that insult by using precisely the same "logic" with you that you used with Abbie. It's nice to see that the student so easily matched his master here. Thank you for noticing that I've always been the precocious disciple.

Posted by: Justicar | July 19, 2011 7:18 AM

You're just pissed because unlike where you like to hangout, Abbie doesn't believe in excluding people from conversations because what they say is unpopular.

You're obviously delusional. Where exactly is it that I like to hang out, pray tell ?

But I understand that you're a protagonist of censorship. I am sad this is true, but I am unsurprised given the company you keep.

Mate, please take your meds, and I hope your mum grounds you while you're unstable like this.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 19, 2011 7:27 AM

When presented with a problem/conundrum/issue, I am a mule. Put up a wall? *shrug* Ill kick it down. Its not elegant. Its not pretty. Its brute force. And it gets the job done.

I do this, too! True for problem solving, and also when it comes to communicating. Try my best to precisely and accurately express my intended meaning. Sometimes people don't accept that I said what I meant; they assume I'm actually being extra super subtle with subtle sauce and sneaky sprinkles (which is a total waste of time and energy, but whatever). People can be really weird.

It is inspiring to see people be Jedi Masters of communication, as is the case with RD. So very much can be said by such a straight forward and unambiguous action. In summary: Dawkins, FTW!

Posted by: Shirah | July 19, 2011 7:32 AM

You may well claim I am willfully misunderstanding the situation, but that doesn't make it the case. I realize that not having an argument of any variety, you're kind of limited in how you address those whom your attempts at emotional exploitation haven't convinced, but implying that I'm willfully stupid does no work in making your case. It's just desperate. No one in your camp has put forth a single coherent chain of reasoning to disturb anything I've argued or to even suggest your claim is provisionally not erroneous.

*sigh* I should be doing something useful (like writing my thesis), but fine, I'll waste my time arguing with a troll instead.

As has been pointed out time and time again by those who are actually familiar with the facts of the situation, Watson didn't do anything wrong. She didn't "over-react". She simply pointed out, by way of helpful advice, that making unsolicited sexual advances towards a (married) woman who doesn't know you, at 4am in an elevator when she's already said she's tired and wants to go to bed, is a creepy and annoying thing to do, and that it made her feel uncomfortable. She didn't attack him personally; she didn't name him or give any identifying details; she simply informed people, for future reference, that sexual propositions in elevators at 4am are not welcome.

This wasn't an "over-reaction". It was a perfectly rational reaction. We live in a society in which sexual assault and harassment are depressingly common. Watson didn't know the man in question, and she had absolutely no way of telling in advance what his intentions were. As it turns out, he seems to have been harmless; but she had no way of knowing that in advance, and his initial intentions were creepy and made her feel uncomfortable. In those circumstances, it was perfectly reasonable for her to explain to people, politely, that she finds it uncomfortable to be approached sexually in those kinds of circumstances, and that she'd rather people didn't do so. That's all she said.

For making this sensible and measured statement, she's been met with a barrage of hatred from the privileged-d00d blogosphere, been accused of being a "hysterical feminist" who's "over-reacting", and been accused of calling all men rapists (when she said absolutely nothing of the kind). And Dawkins waded in and made the stupid argument that, because women in Muslim theocracies are more oppressed, Watson shouldn't be complaining about receiving unwanted sexual advances. (Really, Richard? So we shouldn't be worrying about the erosion of religious freedom and the ascendancy of the Christian Right in the US? After all, atheists in Saudi Arabia have it much worse than atheists in America do, so by the same standard you espoused, Western atheists should just stop complaining.)

Posted by: Walton | July 19, 2011 7:39 AM

So Dr. Dawkins failed to address his commenting contretemps directly, but instead threw a wad of money at a semi-related problem?

Nice move, yes - but a failure on a verbal and intellectual level, and on a political level little more than an exercise in privilege.

One could imagine worse resolutions - but one can also imagine responses we might fairly call actual resolutions.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 19, 2011 7:50 AM

This wasn't an "over-reaction". It was a perfectly rational reaction.
The over-reaction wasn't Rebecca's video, but what followed - her attack on others, and the illiberal bullshit on Laden's and PZ's blog. That is what Dawkins was reacting to, not Watson's video in isolation. If you don't even understand what Dawkins was reacting to, how on earth can you have reasonably evaluated his comments objectively?

Watson didn't know the man in question, and she had absolutely no way of telling in advance what his intentions were.
That's true EVERY TIME TWO STRANGERS MEET. So fucking what? Do we need an blogospheric bullshit explosion every time two people in the world talk to each other for the first time?

We have a simple, elegant rule. No means no. It is a good rule, because it is simple to understand, and draws a clear line which doesn't bar people talking to each other, but also prevents harrassment. That line was not breached.

Your line "people shouldn't talk to each other if they are creepy" is a fucking stupid rule. It is virtually impossible to apply in any real world situation.

Really, Richard? So we shouldn't be worrying about the erosion of religious freedom and the ascendancy of the Christian Right in the US?
Oh, FFS. Is this what it boils down to? The lens through which you see the world means we must be precious about Muslims and the Watson's of this world, and Richard Dawkins biggest failing here is to use an example from Islam instead of Christianity? Basically - he picked an example that offends you because you can only see the whole world through the distorting lens of western imperialism.

Bearing in mind that Dawkins has been one the greatest and most effective critics of the Religious stranglehold in the US.

Utterly, utterly pathetic.

Posted by: Spence | July 19, 2011 8:03 AM

Walton:
I am merely suggesting some friendly advice to black people late at night. They just shouldn't walk behind white people because some white people are afeared. It's not racist or anything - just friendly advice.

Incidentally, I am as familiar with the facts as you are familiar with the facts. And by facts, of course, I mean what Rebecca Watson has said.

Fact: she said she was invited to coffee.
Supposition: she was actually propositioned for sex.

Fact: she said there was a man in the elevator with her.
Supposition: there actually was a man in the elevator with her.

Fact: she was in no actual danger at all. The probability that she would have been raped is 0 because she was in fact not raped. That she experienced some fear or apprehension was irrational since she was, in fact, never in any danger. The scenario she imagined in her head that happened that caused her these emotions are by definition irrational as they are not congruent with reality. This irrationality on her part does not provide a license to her to advise something like 3.5 billion people on when they may or may not speak to someone.

Fact: Rebecca Watson claims she declined the offer to have coffee with the supposed man, and he took no for an answer.
Fact: that is the precise outcome that should happen - he went all the way up to taking no for an answer.

Fact: she says that was the first time they had spoken to one another.
Supposition: he heard her talk at the conference.
Supposition: he was within earshot of her in the bar.

Having listened to her speak, I can understand why people find it difficult to believe anyone would actually invite her to prolong a conversation, but the alleged guy had been drinking. So, she might have come off smarter than normal to him (if he even existed).

You are free to continue arguing your suppositions as facts, but those of us who are skeptical are highly likely to dismiss them. There isn't a single piece of evidence yet presented that bears out your claim she was being sexually propositioned. There isn't a single piece of evidence that exists that indicates anyone else was in that elevator with Rebecca Watson, let alone spoke to her, let alone invited her to coffee.

To say otherwise is nothing more than rank speculation on no evidence of any import.

Telling someone to stop whining because absolutely nothing has happened to her isn't sexist. Sexism deals with discrimination against a person because of their gender. I see nothing in this scenario, if true, that indicates this. Sexism deals with devaluing a person on account of their gender. An invitation to coffee or conversation does not seem to diminish anyone, let alone because of gender. Even if it had been a sexual proposition, that alone doesn't devalue someone on account of their gender.

Xenophobia is listed as a deal breaking concern for you.

Xenophobia defined: hatred or *fear* of foreigners or *strangers* or of their politics or culture

Rebecca Watson exhibited fear of this gentleman on account of his gender incident to, and I'll quote you, "our sexist culture, women who are victims of sexual assault are often blamed and shamed by those around them for not doing enough to "protect" themselves, for "asking for it"

I expect you will now be distancing yourself from Rebecca Watson because xenophobia is welcome in her organization. Indeed, she exhibits it herself.

And you dare to call me a troll?

Your inability to rub two thoughts together and present a coherent argument shoring up your conclusions doesn't, alas, make a troll for either a.) noticing, or b.) pointing it out.

Try harder you must.

Posted by: Justicar | July 19, 2011 8:16 AM

It was sexist because he is speaking from a position of male privilege and of ignorance about women's lives and experiences

The trouble with this is that it is a simple ad hominem. If one makes a point, that point should stand regardless of the position that the person making the point finds themselves in. After all, the person making the point is contingent - somebody else in an entirely different position might have made the exact same point.

Suppose I say "fossil X is good evidence for evolution". Somebody might reply (truthfully) "you're speaking from a position of being a non-scientist and of ignorance regarding evolution". So, even though they correctly identified certain traits I have related to the issue at hand, it does not mean that fossil X is not good evidence for evolution. That is, in a nutshell why arguing ad hominem is ineffective.

With this in mind, Dawkins, being a man, is not entitled to tell a woman that she is "over-reacting" by feeling uncomfortable in that kind of situation.

You put the words "over-reacting" in quotes, but he never actually used those words. Actually I don't think he did tell her what to feel or anything like that. I get the feeling that he was responding to the disproportionate brouhaha created as a result of the initial complaint.

I don't agree that because he is a man he loses any special rights about what he can say to anybody else. I wonder if whether I (or another man) made the same complaint about a woman and PZ wrote two posts on the matter Dawkins would have made the same comments. If not, then his action was sexist. However, I strongly suggest he would have done, perhaps with even more punch.

Sexism is discrimination on the basis of gender, not "telling a woman what to feel". If you say "you cannot tell a woman what to feel because you're a man", then that is sexist!

Posted by: Notung | July 19, 2011 8:17 AM

I love this shit. Dawkins actually DOES something real, that will help gobs of people who couldn't have attended a TAM before. He actually did something. Where the fuck has watson been on this? She's so goddamned famous, she could have been leading this charge. Oh wait, right, she's too busy collectiing speaker's checks, hosting cutsie game shows, and belittling those who disagree with her from her podium to, you know, actually DO something other than be the Skeptic's "movement" version of a New Media Douchebag.

(yep. Just checked skepchicks. as of 7:48 eastern, not a fucking word from Watson on this. But "The Privilege Delusion" is still up. Of course, Watson's backed her ass into a bit of a corner. She's personally boycotting Dawkins until he properly "apologizes" for his misogynist ways, so she kind of CAN'T comment about this. Oh Morton's Fork, how your barbed tangs DP us without mercy)

11:

Richard has a mixed relationship with feminism which I think comes from a little problem with the whole priv thing. Not occurred to him that there were female science authors that could have been included in his anthology, etc. His comments on PZ's blog were unconscionable.

yeah. What a horrible mixed relationship. He treats women like functional grown-assed adults instead of helpless children too delicate to be on the SAME SIDE OF THE STREET AS A MAN! OMG! VAPORS! His comments were only "unconscionable" if you have your head so far up Watson's ass that you have to move her uvula out of the way to see daylight. Rather a lot of us realized the point he was trying to make, namely, a clumsy approach in a elevator may be slightly creepy, but it is NOT some kind of fucking assault or EEEEBUL OBJECTIMACASHUN.

But when you invest all your time in treating women as helpless, well, I guess you have to think the way you do.

But I don't think anyone "on that side" (give me a break please) vilifies him, and he deserves credit for having his foundation cover day care. If you'll remember the coup that happened on his site a year or so ago, he does have a track record of spewing out unconsidered prose that bites him later. Maybe he should try blogging for a while.

Bullshit Greg. You, watson, jen, PZ, and all the rest vilified the living shit out of him. You created a vilification MACHINE. You took time, you crafted fucking massive amounts of prose for your little blogerati lynch mobs, and he just ignored the fucking lot of you, and showed that he could give a fuck about blogging, he's more interested in actually doing something. That's called actual "activism", not that slactivistic bullshit you practice.

"Oooh, I WROTE A BLOG POST, I SHOWED TEH DAWKINS"

"I'm funding day care at TAM so more parents can participate"

"YOU'RE STILL WRONG"

13:

Please don't take a good thing and use it to spit in our faces. It's immature.

No one, even you, on the "let's get Dawkins" crowd, has the *slightest* moral high ground to accuse anyone over the age of two of immaturity. You have all acted like a pack of raging loons with regard to Dawkins over the last few days/weeks, and quite frankly, have earned all the virtual mocking you're getting after what Dawkins did.

Enjoy it. You earned it.

29:

A cheap ad hominem like changing the name of someone you disagree with from Watson to "Twatson", and supportive comments from the likes of Justicar, who makes lunatics like WW look like a sane intellectual, are making me think that I should take ERV off my bookmarks.

Of course, the relentless ad hominems against Dawkins or really, EVERYONE who doesn't march lockstep with the PZ/Watson view of feminism, THAT shit's okay. Because it's only bad when YOUR ox gets gored.

What a whiny fucker you are.

It's so funny to watch such a huge chunk of the "skeptical' movement play the same fucking game of "no true scotsman" with feminism that they cheerfully and gleefully savage the creationists for doing. Congratulations: you've moved another step closer to that which you hate.

31:

In the wake of Elevatorgate, it also seems that parts of the atheist blogosphere (with the honourable exceptions, thankfully, of Pharyngula and Greta Christina) are intent on defending Dawkins' idiotic sexist comments to the hilt. The amount of casual contempt for Ms Watson's feelings and experiences (and those of other women who have experienced harassment or unwelcome/creepy advances) is breathtaking. The attitude in some circles seems to be "But we can't be sexists! We're enlightened progressive atheists who reject religious patriarchy!" News flash: sexism isn't just a product of religion, and the absence of religion doesn't mean sexism will magically disappear from a community. Sexism is much more deeply ingrained in our culture than that, and atheists are just as capable of being sexist idiots as religious people are.

Wow, for someone so upset about people misinterpreting poor widdle watson, you sure as shit don't have a problem doing it yourself.

Here's a hint: Feminism is not like physics. It's not math. There's no one right answer, no one correct way to interpret data. In theory, it is entirely possible for people with the same general goal to have radically different ways of getting there.

Even those of us who think the "women as helpless children" meme that you, laden, pz, watson, et al are pushing SO hard is naught but a bunch of crap. You'd be amazed at how many people disagreeing with watson's actions and general assitude aren't saying "she had no right to feel creeped out". But then, you'd have to pay attention to people who disagree with you, so right away, we know THAT's not happening. If watson came away from EG feeling creeped out, she has a perfect right to feel that way, and she's not wrong to feel that way.

What we ARE saying is that EVERYTHING IS NOT THE FUCKING SAME. A clumsy pass/invitation to coffee is not the same as fucking RAPE. A man not crossing the street when he sees a single woman on the same side of the street as him is NOT the same as ATTEMPTED ASSAULT. Schrodinger's Rapist is a load of shit, (for one, it's incorrectly defined. What they're talking about isn't "all men are rapists, we just don't know if they're going to rape me too", but rather Schrodinger's Male: we can't easily tell if a given man is going to tr to assault someone or not."

Also, it is YOUR side of things that has been spewing precious bon mots like:

"Being assaulted/raped as a child doesn't count, you don't live with that fear every day, because it happened so long ago"
"Men can't be raped"
"Men can't be raped by women"
"It's only rape if it involves penetration by a human male penis"

That's the kind of bullshit and vitriol *your* side has been pushing, and only on one site have I seen the site owner take action against it. The rest of you, and i'm including you *specifically* have been happy to play the game of "You don't agree with us, you are against us, you are the "other" so none of the rules we apply to you in how you treat us have any validity in how we treat you"

So spare me the handwaving, you're just as down in the muck as you think we are.

33:

Rebecca Watson deserves nothing but contempt ? O rly ? Because some random internet loser says so on a blog ? Does anyone really deserve "nothing but contempt"? Well, I disagree, I think we can have different opinions,and god knows the atheist and skeptic community is champion in that, but we should at least be able to listen to each other's arguments without making "nothing but contempt" statements.

BAAAHAHAHAHAAHA...you mean the way that PZ ensures that all commenters, even the ones who disagree with him are treated with respect? Or Laden? Come on, you're punking here. No one, NO ONE can be that self-unaware and be able to BREATHE correctly. The treatment by watson, PZ, laden et al of anyone who DARES to disagree with them has been pretty much an online lynch mob, and you, who evidently think that's just fuckin' dandy, sit there and call ANYONE out about being meany-faced poopyheads?

You have to be an atheist. No one who's afraid of a hell of any kind could pull that shit.

34:

You must be referring to those who have made such an idol out of Dawkins that they can't recognize what a dick he's been in this sorry elevatorgate business.

Yeah. How DARE Dawkins not agree that Watson was lucky to have escaped with her life from that hellmouth of an elevator.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 19, 2011 8:24 AM

This post was directed towards bloggers who lead/contributed to a lynch mob.

Oh, yes. What an excellent choice of metaphor. Because, of course, we all know that criticizing someone's comments on the Internet is just like dragging someone forcibly from his home and brutally murdering him in public as an example to others. (I didn't know you were taking lessons from Ben Stein in the art of over-the-top rhetoric.)

Posted by: Walton | July 19, 2011 8:35 AM

"A cheap ad hominem like changing the name of someone you disagree with from Watson to "Twatson""

Or, indeed, calling someone who doesn't agree with them a dick and editing their posts before banning them because it's your blog (Greg) is worse than calling RW Twatson. Except that you did that, so it's not childish. Apparently.

Then again, saying "You don't understand because you're a male" is an ad hom. But again that too isn't the same.

Posted by: Wow | July 19, 2011 8:35 AM

In regards John C. Welch above:
"She's so goddamned famous, she could have been leading this charge."
Abbie, I believe you have the appropriate link to the kind of charge in question . . . humor me.

Walton:
You are working very hard not to read the words on the screen.

Fact: she claims he asked her to coffee.
Supposition: he propositioned her for sex.

You may call me all of the names you want. That, however, does not change the fact that you are pretending to know things you cannot know. You dismiss that you don't need evidence because you just "know" what happened. You do not, and to pretend otherwise is dishonest. You are asserting on no evidence at all that x happened. You know there is no evidence. You are not being honest.

I see you weren't even able to dismiss Watson's xenophobia. Who knew that being dishonest in general would manifest itself in you as being a hypocrite too.

It is not "reasonable" to be scared of people because of xenophobia. She is perfectly entitled to feel that way. She's perfectly entitled to be as irrational and xenophobic as she wants. It just isn't reasonable. Understandable, but unreasonable.

More people were killed or seriously injured in a car crash this week than have been raped or sexually assaulted in the last year. More children will have died from poverty by the time you've read to this point in my post than have ever been raped or sexually assaulted in an elevator.

Her fears were misplaced - they were entirely phantasms of her sexism and xenophobia.

You know what else happens in our society? People on your side blame people who've committed no crime for potentially committing a crime.

Posted by: Justicar | July 19, 2011 8:45 AM

43:

For making this sensible and measured statement, she's been met with a barrage of hatred from the privileged-d00d blogosphere, been accused of being a "hysterical feminist" who's "over-reacting", and been accused of calling all men rapists (when she said absolutely nothing of the kind). And Dawkins waded in and made the stupid argument that, because women in Muslim theocracies are more oppressed, Watson shouldn't be complaining about receiving unwanted sexual advances. (Really, Richard? So we shouldn't be worrying about the erosion of religious freedom and the ascendancy of the Christian Right in the US? After all, atheists in Saudi Arabia have it much worse than atheists in America do, so by the same standard you espoused, Western atheists should just stop complaining.)

Actually, no. People have pointed out she could have been misinterpreting EG's intentions, but really, very few people didn't think she had a "right" to feel creepy. Where she went off the rails is when people disagreed with her takeaway, she called them misogynists, and anti-feminist. Where people got pissed is when she abused her power as a speaker to fuck with Stef M. and BY NAME call her a misogynist/sexist supporter and anti-woman.

Where people really got pissed is when the "ALL MEN ARE DANGEROUS AND ALL WOMEN ARE HELPLESS" morons came crawling out and started with the "IF YOU DISAGREE WITH RW OR ANY OF US, JOO ARE MEESOGINIZT 2!!!!" shit. When they started saying men couldn't be raped, or childhood rape doesn't count, and RW et al agreed with them either specifically or via inaction.

When Laden and that lot start calling out men who don't cross the street to avoid women as being bad people, that made it worse.

There were quite a few of us who got what RD meant: everything is not the same. A clumsy pass at 4am is not attempted assault. Someone, for whatever reason, (I know this is hard for RW to grok, but maybe, just maybe, she's not the center of everyone's world. not even everyone at a bar), someone who may have not been hanging on her every word, and said something stupid that went against what she had just been talking about is not on the same level as actual rape, mutilation, and actual misogyny. Maybe when we elevate somewhat minor problems to the same level as truly major problems, it trivializes the major problems, and that trivialization of real, bad, evil shit is a little more concerning than a clumsy, even creepy pass at 4 in the morning in an elevator in Ireland.

But no, all men are rapists, it's just that most of us haven't had our "rape switch" triggered yet. (yeah, that's another bit of clever from your lot.)

44:

With this in mind, Dawkins, being a man, is not entitled to tell a woman that she is "over-reacting" by feeling uncomfortable in that kind of situation. It's incredibly arrogant, and it stems from a position of clueless privilege. Not to mention that he also went on to diminish and trivialize women's experience of sexism in Western societies, by effectively saying "you should stop complaining because Muslim women have it worse". It was sexist idiocy from start to finish.

Dawkins, being a human, has the right to say any goddamned thing he chooses. You, as a human, have the right to (dis)agree as you see fit. But no, you'd rather silence any who don't march in lockstep with your views.

45:

So Dr. Dawkins failed to address his commenting contretemps directly, but instead threw a wad of money at a semi-related problem?

Nice move, yes - but a failure on a verbal and intellectual level, and on a political level little more than an exercise in privilege.

Or maybe he doesn't take you seriously enough to care what the fuck you think, and instead, focused on something that is a longer term, larger problem, the solution for which will have huge importance for many. Also, said solution was in the works long before elevatorgate.

Good job there.

46:

All people, sceptics and otherwise, have a moral responsibility to refrain from perpetuating sexism (and racism, and homophobia, and xenophobia and so forth). Any "community" which welcomes sexists, racists or xenophobes with open arms is not a community in which I wish to participate.

"However, any who approach issues of sexism, racism et al in a way that is different than mine are wrong, sexist and racist"

That's what this is really about: one group screaming "OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY" and the others going "what the FUCK are you on about?"

48:

My point was that there is no difference between these two arguments:

1: "You Western feminists should shut up and stop complaining, because women in the Muslim world have it so much worse."

2: "You Western atheists should shut up and stop complaining, because atheists in the Muslim world have it so much worse."

Dawkins and his fellow-travellers would obviously - rightly - regard argument 2 as fatuous and stupid. Why, then, did he think that argument 1 was a compelling argument?

Because maybe that's not what a lot of us saw Dawkins' argument as? Maybe we agreed that creepy or not, EG respected the rule of "no means no". Maybe we see RD's argument as being "Not everything is the same, stop trivializing major issues in your attempt to promote what is a minor encounter". Maybe had RW not taken her steps to call any who disagree with her "anti-woman", and attack an audience member from the podium, a lot of this wouldn't have happened.

Why does any- and everything RW does get such a fucking pass from your lot? What exactly would she have to do to merit even the slightest criticism?

50:

What I am arguing is that making a sexual advance towards a woman (a married woman, incidentally), who doesn't know you, in an elevator at 4am when she is alone, is a creepy and inappropriate thing to do. At best, it's irritating for her. At worst, it's likely to make her feel threatened and uncomfortable.

actually, i do think she's divorced, or damned near. She appears to talk about it from time to time. also, no, it's not always creepy. It's sometimes creepy. HOw can you tell? you can't. So you either hope in your case it's not, or never, ever talk to a single woman (single as in "one" not marital status) on an elevator, even if it's just innocuous shit like "do you have the time? I left my cell in my room" or if you're Laden, i suppose you never allow yourself to be on an elevator/street/anywhere with a single woman. "creepy" is so subjective as to be singularly useless. A different woman in the same situation may not have seen it as creepy at all. Is she wrong? According to your lot, she must be.

Context is important in social interactions. There are times and places in which it's perfectly appropriate to approach someone and to introduce yourself. (FFS, Watson had been in the bar for several hours beforehand, and Elevator Guy had plenty of time to converse with her then if he had wanted to do so.) However, approaching an exhausted woman in an elevator at 4am is not one of those appropriate times or places; especially when the only content of one's conversation is to make a thinly-veiled sexual proposition.

and the reasons why that may not have happened are legion, so there's no point in reiterating them, especially when you don't actually care anyway.

Maybe Elevator Guy, and some other people who frequent atheist conferences, are socially-clueless enough that they genuinely didn't realize this. Fine. Which is why Watson, reasonably and politely, explained that she doesn't want to be approached in those circumstances. It wasn't an attack; it was friendly advice on how to behave towards others in a social situation.

And again, you miss the real problem people have with her. But then, you can't imagine that as being a legitimate possibility.

52:

I don't have time to really get into it right now, but I gotta say this: Walton's making a lot of sense here.

Those who want to get further along than drawing lines and flinging turds at those outside their own little circles would do better to read his comments twice than to post uninformed slurs once.

He's making sense if you agree with his central tenants: men have no rights to criticize women, women are helpless, and so on.

If you disagree with how he views the world and women in general, he's making a lot of bulldookey on the rug.

Once again, we see that independent thought and disagreement is only acceptable if you disagree just like the popular kids do.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 19, 2011 8:55 AM

John Morales:
I see your reading skills have not improved since last time we met.

1. EG was in the group during Rebecca's socialisation after her talk.
3. EG did not speak to Rebecca during said socialisation at that venue.
4. Rebecca announced she was tired and was going to sleep.
These were answered explicitly just below the section you quoted. Excellent work stopping midway. (or quotemining - take your pick).
I said: "Fact: she says that was the first time they had spoken to one another.
Supposition: he heard her talk at the conference.
Supposition: he was within earshot of her in the bar."

Moving on to point
7. EG stated he'd enjoyed her talk (about the problems women face) and wanted to speak further to her, and invited her to his room for coffee.
Her actual words: "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting."
This doesn't imply he heard her talk at the conference, or any specific conversation in the bar later on. To say that it does is to speculate beyond what the information (if accepted as true in the first place) can possibly support.

2. The venue at which this occurred served coffee (presumably better than the sachets found in hotel rooms).
This is interesting. I was dealing with facts, not what you imagine to be the case. I decline to overwrite reality with your fantasy. It is also irrelevant to his intent. That there's a Starbucks near me doesn't mean inviting someone to my house to have coffee and conversation is an invitation for some ass.

5. EG followed Rebecca into the elevator after her withdrawal from said socialising.
Her actual words: "And a man got on the elevator with me."
This doesn't imply he "followed her".

I am neither arguing that it is or is not. I am arguing that you do not know, and to say that it is a proposition for sex is complete speculation not supported by any evidence. Nor is it even entailed by Rebecca Watson's video, assuming you accept her story as true.

Going on what Watson has said, and accepting for the sake argument that it's a true accounting of the events, the only thing entailed by what she's said is that she was indeed invited to coffee. Nothing suggests otherwise, and I thus decline to magic into existence all these extra imaginary facts you seem to have no troubles conjuring up for the sake of a narrative.

Then again, one of us is a skeptic - the kind of person whose claims are constrained by what is demonstrably the case. The other person is named John Morales.

Posted by: Justicar | July 19, 2011 9:20 AM

Excuse me, "Twatson"?

That's really not the way to convince people that you're super rational.

I mean, Dawkins' day care proposal is great and he deserves credit, bully for him, yada yada.

...Twatson?

0_o

Posted by: SallyStrange | July 19, 2011 9:33 AM

"Unless you claim Rebecca is lying, these are also facts"

Love the fact that John is now engaged in shifting the burden of proof from the person making the claim to us. Anecdotes and recollections are now "also facts". Real "skeptical" of you.

Posted by: Dalek | July 19, 2011 9:39 AM

"well-respected woman"

Really? An internet troll, banned from the jref forums for socketpuppetry, that is famous for being famous? The same person that merely thrives on attention and controversy?

It is an insult to well-respected women every where to put Rebecca Watson in the same class. You know, women with real professional and academic accomplishments.

Posted by: Dalek | July 19, 2011 9:45 AM

The most pertinent issue in this entire affair, for me, is the disgusting manner in which Watson "called out" Stef McGraw during her keynote speech at the CFI Student Leadership Conference, without Stef having any way in which to adequately respond. Watson has come out of this looking very bad in a number of ways.

Forget Elevator Gate- it is a side-show. I am a fairly shy sort of fellow in person and I sometimes have difficulty in approaching women in a romantic or sexual context, and I can't even imagine asking a girl to my room for coffee without having beforehand struck up some sort of conversation. I wish that I had the balls to do so! I wish that I was one of those guys who just "went for it", and brass-necked their way through life, asking girls for "coffee" without a second's thought. If anything I think that this dude should be commended for having the gumption to do something about his sexual attraction to a girl, instead of doing what I, and many other men would do in a similar situation: staring at the floor wishing that we had the courage to talk to a girl.

Like I said- Elevator Gate is a side-show. The real issue for me is Watson's behaviour with regards to Stef McGraw, and her comments about Dawkins. She was a total prick for attempting to humiliate Stef McGraw, and she was a total prick for her arrogant dismissal of Dawkins as a privileged misogynist who has nothing left to contribute to the humanist movement.

Now, a whole cavalcade of other, less than laudatory snippets of information concerning Watson's past are beginning to emerge. Some posters are taking issue with the epithet "Twatson". I would argue that this is not simply a base example of school-ground name-calling; it is in fact a true reflection on her character. Getting herself banned from the JREF forums for sock-puppetry and banning members that she simply didn't like; hijacking panels at atheist meetings in order to further her own off-topic agendas; using her position of power to humiliate students at atheist meetings and waxing hysterical about how Richard Dawkins is a misogynist because he doesn't think that asking a girl for coffee in an elevator is that big of a deal. Taking all of this into consideration, I'm sorry: she comes across as a total fucking twat.

Posted by: Mr. DNA | July 19, 2011 9:51 AM

Walton how can you say what you do at 46 after previously discounting what people say because of their presumed gender and privileged status (using a misandric slur, no less)?

Posted by: JohnV | July 19, 2011 9:59 AM

Notung, yeah, (7) is iffy. Happy to retract it, since I'm not about to do a search to substantiate it and it's hardly essential to the case.

--

Justicar, here I quote Rebecca on the points you dispute.
(2) "There is a small chance that this man meant nothing sexual in his comment, despite the fact that I had clearly indicated my wish to go to bed (alone) and the fact that the bar had coffee and therefore there was absolutely zero reason to go to anyone’s hotel room to have it. Sure. There’s a chance."

(5) There’s a chance EG going into the elevator with her at 4am was not following her, much like there's a chance his proposition was purely coincidental. :)

Posted by: John Morales | July 19, 2011 10:00 AM

"Twatson". I would argue that this is not simply a base example of school-ground name-calling; it is in fact a true reflection on her character.

Its a reflection of her character? Her character is that of female genitalia, which is a Bad Thing because, um, female genitalia are bad?

Keep digging, guys.

Posted by: SallyStrange | July 19, 2011 10:06 AM

Hi, Sally. I come from a place called Scotland, where nick-names for genitalia are generally applied to people to whom we believe have flaws in their character. I have friends who are twats. I have friends who are dicks, pricks, cocks and cunts. In relation to the four specific examples that I outlined in my previous post, Rebecca Watson comes out of each of them looking like a bit of a twat. Hence the epithet "Twatson" seems to me to be particularly apt, and pretty darn funny into the bargain.

Posted by: Mr. DNA | July 19, 2011 10:13 AM

Of course testimonies are unreliable. However, nobody has presented evidence for the proposition that a.) RW personally is extra-unreliable or b.) unwelcome sexual advances by men towards women are uncommon events at atheist conferences.

The point about skepticism is that you wait for the side making the claim to produce evidence - evidence of greater value than a single testimony. Otherwise I could say "well prove to me that my relative who witnessed the miracle is unreliable! You can't! Therefore miracles."

Even if RW is neither a liar nor an amnesiac, if would not mean that we cannot be skeptical with regards to her claims. It is disingenuous to say to a skeptic who just applied the method they believe in to a position you hold: "What right do you have to be skeptical about this?"

Posted by: Notung | July 19, 2011 10:18 AM

Sigh.
The bit about her clearly indicating her wish to go sleep is already handled readily by the second of the two suppositions I posted earlier. There is no reason to think this man, if he existed, heard her say that. That she said it doesn't imply he was in a position to hear it. I realize that reiteration is one of the ways you people function, but the statement carries no more weight, becomes no more true by repetition. So, we'll just toss that off to the side as being rank speculation on your part.

Further, nothing you've posted disturbs what I wrote:
"This is interesting. I was dealing with facts, not what you imagine to be the case. I decline to overwrite reality with your fantasy."
Are you going to claim this changes the part that you admit is rank conjecture: whether bar coffee is superior to coffee someone might have in his room?

"It is also irrelevant to his intent."
Do you propose based on that that this is now relevant to his intent?

"That there's a Starbucks near me doesn't mean inviting someone to my house to have coffee and conversation is an invitation for some ass."

That coffee is available in another spot doesn't imply an invitation to my home for coffee is an invitation to have sex.

Further, the claim becomes no less speculative because you're quoting Rebecca Watson's rank speculation. "There's a small chance." She has no way to determine that. Just because she walks around under the belief that every man in the world wants to fuck her (god knows she can't give a single speech without mentioning how much e-mail she gets from men explaining how they just all can't wait to fuck her) doesn't mean, as a matter of fact, that any random person who invites her to coffee is actually speaking in code.

Indeed, whenever I've invited anyone to coffee it's been to have coffee, even if it's at odd hours of the night. Granted, I don't speak for all men. But if I'd said that in the elevator, the story would be the same. Except that it would definitely not be an invitation for sex.

You are free to believe whatever you'd like. But when your claims aren't shored up by the slightest bit of evidence, I'm going to decline the invitation to join in your imaginary universe.

Yes, there is a chance. Indeed, it happens quite a lot that people wind up in elevators with one another. It's almost like a commonplace kind of thing that billions of people have been subjected to. About 10 of them have been sexually assaulted. These are scary odds.

Again, you're free to imagine whatever you'd like, and imply and suggest. You're still just full of shit and making it up as you go along. You have no information that indicates a single word of what you're smiley-face implying is true.

But don't let facts get in the way of an otherwise vacuous story.

Posted by: Justicar | July 19, 2011 10:20 AM

Notung corrects me (rather pedantically, but fairly): "Unless you claim Rebecca is lying or mistaken

It is a little pedantic, but it is mainly to show that if I question RW's claim it doesn't mean I think she's a liar. I think it is important to recognise that, both for my sake and for RW's.

Posted by: Notung | July 19, 2011 10:23 AM

If we're expected to believe -

Dawkins was replying to Watson directly and saying she isn't allowed to feel how she felt

rather than

Responding to the posters in Pharyngula and saying their treating the minor event of Watson's encounter as tantamount to rape (people who said that it wasn't a big deal were called rape-apologists after-all) was trivialising real physical misogyny

then why didn't Dawkins reply on Watson's space, or his own space, rather than on the comments thread at Pharyngula?

Posted by: Peter | July 19, 2011 10:29 AM

Let's Recap that, PZ:
You advise Abbie to read skepchick on one subject, and then demonstrate a perfect ignorance of another that's on the "most popular" list there.

For instance, that Richard Dawkins should know better because he's aware of the rape e-mails she gets. That is in proportion to being asked out to coffee? No demands? "Do not do that" doesn't exactly have the tone of a request. Indeed, it's classed as an imperative statement, which requires/demands the specific action be undertaken. I recall studying these under Mrs. Watson (I shit you not, really her name) in the first fucking grade.

Dear Dick campaign. Reasonable.

His books are no longer worth recommending to anyone to read even though they're as true today as they were a week ago. Reasonable.

He's the past who has done so little for feminism, and humanism. Reasonable.

PZ, on this topic, you're a fucking joke. And a hypocrite.

A "talented" advocate for skepticism would presumably not entail a person who cries foul when people are dubious to his/her claims which are by definition entirely speculative.

So, Dawins' public announcement by voice is somehow not sufficient for your ilk to take notice, preferring instead to wait until it's officially announced (which obviously just his saying it doesn't count - who does he think he is anyway?) on his website, but his writing in the comment section on your blog and not on his website was a sufficiently official statement for many cans of proverbial whoopass to be opened on the spot.

Looking on his website, I see he has still failed to officially announce he wrote on your blog and that it's true he said it. Why are you being inconsistent?

Nevermind. Hypocrite. Forgot. It's because your claims aren't rooted in facts, and therefore can't be disturbed by the inconvenience of them.

Raging? I think most of us are largely laughing *at* you guys/gals over there.

The only person who's actually entitled to be full on rage-y over this is Stef McGraw. She's handled the situation with great poise, without a great deal of notice from your camp at all. Indeed, you actively supported tearing her down in public like that.

And lastly, failing to adopt your myopic sect of extremism doesn't make people "anti-feminists". It's keeps us where we were before this started: anti-bullshit. And you're covered in it.

Posted by: Justicar | July 19, 2011 10:45 AM

"Her character is that of female genitalia, which is a Bad Thing because, um, female genitalia are bad?"

As I've said about the "You're a dick": It's a state of mind, not a parts list.

See Wikipedia:

The word twat has various functions. It is a vulgar synonym for the human vulva, vagina, or clitoris, but is more widely used as a derogatory epithet, especially in British English. The word may originate from Old Norse þveit meaning cut, slit, or forest clearing

See also "dick"

Noun

dick (countable and uncountable; plural dicks)

1. (countable, obsolete) A male person.
2. (countable, UK, US, colloquial, vulgar) The penis.

He wore a condom over his dick.

3. (countable, UK, US, colloquial, vulgar, pejorative) A highly contemptible person.

That person is such a dick.

4. (uncountable, US, Canada, colloquial) absolutely nothing.

Last weekend I did dick.

Posted by: Wow | July 19, 2011 10:49 AM

@PZ: "Everyone has seen her "tantrum", since it's on youtube, and all it was was a woman calmly asking that guys don't hit on her. No tantrum. No demands. No hysteria. It was actually a reasonable request in a reasonable context. And all the people raging over it are indicting themselves, not Rebecca Watson."

PZ, come to to fuck. No-one is raging about Watson's "guy's, don't do that" line. That's fair enough in my mind. She's entitled to her opinion. But she certainly did throw an unjustified tantrum when she wrote a long, snarling screed against Dawkins, calling him, pathetically, a misogynist because he doesn't happen to be convinced that some dude asking a girl back to his room is that big of a deal. She went mental, and effectively called on people to boycott his books. You don't think that there was anything wrong with this behaviour? You think that this is the sort of thing that we want to see from one of the most prominent members of the atheist community?

And then there was the knee-jerk wankery from the majority of your Pharyngulites about Dawkins being a "has-been": all the jargon about him being a sad, privileged old white rich guy who doesn't "get it", and who should just "fuck off". That's the message that your lot have been sending out- if you don't agree with us 100% that Elevator Guy is a douche then you can all just fuck off. We don't want your kind here, or at atheist conventions either, for that matter. You don't think that that sort of talk from your blog was a bit of an overreaction?

And your dismissal of any wrongdoing on Watson's part with regards to the Stef McGraw affair is what I find really deeply disappointing. That was the most interesting issue to come out of all of this, and your blasé dismissal of there even being a hint of wrongdoing on Watson's part was just facepalmingly ridiculous.

Oh yeah, and your constant references to anyone who dares to call out Watson on her bullshit as being a "misogynist" is just fucking contemptible. I like your blog and I will continue to read it because I'm not a "one-issue" kind of guy, but it really is rather sad that you so consistently call dissenters to The Party Line "misogynists". Your flagrant misuse of the term is extremely hard for me to get my head around.

Posted by: Mr. DNA | July 19, 2011 10:51 AM

Seriously, if I had clowns like Justicar batting for my team, I'd rather cancel the match.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 19, 2011 10:51 AM

Justicar,

the threads with zero comments on them are evidence of censorship? Even as multiple other threads continue to grow with the ongoing discussion?

Pathetic and reaching.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | July 19, 2011 10:53 AM

PZ Myers@#88

"I am dismayed. Richard Dawkins did a genuinely commendable thing, something that deserves high praise, and you've tainted it by using it to launch an unwarranted and scurrilous attack on a skeptical activist woman and to give a forum to the raging misogynists you've fostered here."

If period in the first sentence was swapped with the comma in the second, it might just be the first honest thing you have written in weeks.

In other words you think you have a right to offer a combination of backpedaling and a spanking to an outspoken atheist woman in science because you are old, male and have a bigger hit count.

You are a tiresome back stabbing coward and your deliberate promotion of under qualified uneducated jugglers as the face of the skeptical feminism is merely so that you can continue to enjoy the privilege of being their defender and control their message.

It is how you maintain delusions of some sort of politically progressive pertinence and personal grandeur.

You are the most revoltingly disloyal and morally cheap sort of a person.

Your words and the thought of you make me physically ill. Do crawl back to your palace of hit counts won't you? Or do you intend to branch out and muzzle dissenting opinion here as well?

Posted by: Prometheus | July 19, 2011 10:59 AM

"There is a small chance that this man meant nothing sexual in his comment,..."

Reminds me of Kev Wilson's Courting Song.

http://www.lyrics007.com/Kevin%20Bloody%20Wilson%20Lyrics/Kev%27s%20Courtin%27%20Song%20Lyrics.html

I guess that Ms RW considers it always a requirement to fuck on first dates.

Maybe she sees courting as sexist.

Posted by: Wow | July 19, 2011 11:00 AM

Sally, where's that link to the current open thread that's been growing before now? They all seem to be locked. Which one have I missed?

Do you have problems with your eyesight, or are you just a lazy fucker ?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 19, 2011 11:02 AM

I see ERV has just admitted she is simply using her blog to troll.

Why do some people take her seriously ?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 19, 2011 11:05 AM

This, for me is the problem. If you disagree on this issue, you're a misogynist. Why can we not discuss this issue in the spirit in which we discuss other things?

Recognizing that you, or your hero, may have said or done something misogynist is not the end of the world. It's just an indication that you, or your hero, is a product of your culture. It's impossible to fix unless you recognize there's a problem. It's important to recognize that just like non-KKK members can and do make racist statements or act on racist assumptions, people who don't actively hate women can still make sexist statements or act out of male privilege.

Holding back from identifying sexism out of misplaced concerns for the delicate feelings of well-meaning but ignorant men (or women) isn't going to help anyone.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | July 19, 2011 11:08 AM

Your Mrs Watson didn't do a good job of teaching you the difference between a demand and a polite request. When a woman tells you "no", do you get angry at her demanding ways?

I do not support any campaign against Dawkins; it's silly for you to berate me for agreeing with every last little thing that Rebecca Watson has done, when I don't. But I also understand how Watson can be personally very angry with Dawkins for trivializing the concerns of some women -- and yes, rape threats are genuinely demeaning and worrisome.

There is nothing dubious about Rebecca Watson's claims. Do you really think it so incredibly unlikely that a woman would be asked to come to a man's hotel room? Weird.

It is in the nature of a blog post that you typically want something that you can link to. Richard Dawkins' comments on my blog were linkable; their source was also verifiable, and I refrained from saying anything until I confirmed them (there were also several posts from people pretending to be Richard Dawkins that I had to delete). His word at the conference was sufficient to believe him, but it was brief--I'm waiting for more details. When there's information about how organizers can apply for aid, I'll publish it. Do you seriously believe I'm unhappy about something I've thought was a great idea for years? Dawkins is making a great contribution to the community with this plan.

I've had no problem with Stef McGraw, and have even said so: I encourage her to express her opinions. As for "tearing her down"...nonsense. Her opinions were discussed, and some agreed with her, and some disagreed. Speaking of dubious claims without evidence -- what exactly did Watson say about McGraw that was so horrible? There's a terrible dearth of substance in your hysterical claims of opression.

And finally, I've been accused of censoring opinions on my blog. Counter-evidence: Justicar is not banned, despite being one of the most idiotic, shrill, dishonest, contemptible scumbag liars on this subject anywhere on the interwebs.

Posted by: PZ Myers | July 19, 2011 11:09 AM

Penfold, you typed all that but didn't include the evidence?

I suspect you're the lazy fucker, but with just enough energy to insult someone because you feel that's worth the effort.

Posted by: Wow | July 19, 2011 11:10 AM

You are a tiresome back stabbing coward and your deliberate promotion of under qualified uneducated jugglers as the face of the skeptical feminism is merely so that you can continue to enjoy the privilege of being their defender and control their message.

It is how you maintain delusions of some sort of politically progressive pertinence and personal grandeur.

You are the most revoltingly disloyal and morally cheap sort of a person.

Your words and the thought of you make me physically ill. Do crawl back to your palace of hit counts won't you? Or do you intend to branch out and muzzle dissenting opinion here as well?

Abbie, I only know you spuriously, but do you really want to be associated with a hating dimwit like Prometheus, or stupid people like Justicar ? At some point a blog owner has to take a stand, I think. What's it going to be ?

Posted by: Rorschach | July 19, 2011 11:15 AM

ERV... Spiking the ball was unnecessary, in my opinion.

Posted by: mk | July 19, 2011 11:18 AM

Penfold, you typed all that but didn't include the evidence?

I had assumed people were capable of reading what ERV has said. Clearly in your case I overestimated your intelligence. Sorry about that. It will not happen again.

Just in case you missed it:

1. I *do not care* about Watson and Elevator Guy.

2. I dont air all my personal business and my life history on my blog.

I also stated quite plainly, to you, that I had not voiced all of my personal issues or reasoning on this particular incident to *anyone*. I said that. To you. Directly. So why would you think you could get that information from my blog?

In otherwords this blog does not reflect her opinions on the matter. However she still chose to blog, and do so in a provocative manner. She could have said nothing. That would have been a better option, since it would not have made her look dishonest and it would give cretins like yourself the chance to show the world how stupid you are.

Now please, try to keep up. If you cannot be bothered to read, or want to lie, you can fuck off.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 19, 2011 11:19 AM

No-one is raging about Watson's "guy's, don't do that" line.

Demonstrably false. The whole affair of Dawkins' comment and Watson's anger over it emerged in what, the second or third post I had on the subject, after thousands of comments.

In other words you think you have a right to offer a combination of backpedaling and a spanking to an outspoken atheist woman in science because you are old, male and have a bigger hit count.

Say what? I have neither backpedaled, nor have I spanked anyone, nor have I cited age, sex, or blog traffic as evidence of authority. I don't think any of that is important.

I also stated quite plainly, to you, that I had not voiced all of my personal issues or reasoning on this particular incident to *anyone*.

This is not a personal issue. I'm engaging in your public discussion of the subject. If it's confidential and not to be made public, it's irrelevant to this whole debate.

I also have some personal, private information about some of the participants in the argument, facts about some of the people on the anti-Watson side, that make their comments look self-serving and prejudicial to me. They're personal and private, though, so they are irrelevant, and I'm not going to take the cheap shot of revealing them.

Posted by: PZ Myers | July 19, 2011 11:22 AM

In otherwords this blog does not reflect her opinions on the matter. However she still chose to blog, and do so in a provocative manner. She could have said nothing. That would have been a better option, since it would not have made her look dishonest and it would give cretins like yourself the chance to show the world how stupid you are.

So if someone doesn't blog everything they feel about a topic, if they blog most of what they feel, but don't want to make all their thoughts public, they're dishonest?

Posted by: Peter | July 19, 2011 11:25 AM

Let's be perfectly clear here on what you've just said.
1.) imperative statements are not imperative
2.) that I'm angry.
3.) that anger is a natural consequence of the word "no"
4.) you've ignored the difference between a declarative no and an imperative no.

That's a lot of spin in such a short space, PZ.

I am not berating you for "agreeing with" everything Watson has done or said. I did, however, point out that you are scolding ERV for her not reading a section of skepchick in the same breath you're demonstrating a perfect ignorance of a featured article there. These are not the same logical spaces, and I'll thank you kindly to do better in that field in the future.

Yes, rape threats are. It's a good thing that Dawkins didn't mock actual threats of rape. That makes this line of non-reasoning irrelevant here (except for being able to loosely knit rape with Watson's shindig so as to craft a nice blunt instrument to whack people with).

What is unlikely for a hypothetical person out of a hypothetical set of people doesn't bear on a particular person from a particular set of people. This is elementary set theory here. Further, no one has made the claim that men do not invite women to their hotel rooms. Until you typed those words, that has never before been suggested in any discussions here or on any other blog about this topic I've followed. Excellent strawman there.

I have not implied that you are unhappy about this eventuality. Why do you pretend that I have said as much when it's not even fairly entailed in what I wrote? Why the chicanery?

The point I made was that a.) you claimed his posting on his website was what something official, b.) his saying it in public, in person was insufficient to justify mention being made by "feminists" of the variety mentioned by Abbie here, c.) a comment that was left on your blog for which no one was entirely sure was made by him curiously was a sufficient reason for the better part of your fan club to tear into him. All without a single comment from you. Not even so much as "hey, hold up, let me verify it on his website before you guys go crazy, because that makes it official."

Or even a "hey, I e-mailed him to see if it's him. Wait until I can confirm before you sharpen your knives."

Not a word of caution or anything.

But you guys have been nothing but reasonable.

"what exactly did Watson say about McGraw that was so horrible? There's a terrible dearth of substance in your hysterical claims of opression[sic]."
That her non-agreement with what Watson said was actually anti-woman, and endangered women and thoughts along those lines.

But you're focusing on content of what was said irrespective of the many times you've been told the issue in that incident was the abuse of The Speaker position to take to task someone who would have no way to respond, but had to sit there and just take it. Remember, even Rebecca Watson said (on her panel with Dawkins) that the Q&A; isn't long enough to address her issue with Paula Kirby, which was, after all, not an indictment on Watson. But Watson's indictment on McGraw somehow could be fully handled in the 60 second time limit during the Q&A.; I guess Watson's issues are just more important than McGraw's.

Further, you may call me a liar, and stupid and vile, what you cannot do is support that I've been remotely dishonest at any step along the way, or that my argument fails. You've had every opportunity, as has everyone else. Not a single argument that isn't contingent on emotional exploitation has sprung forth. You think I'm vile. Fair enough. At the very least I'm not implicating half of the world's population with going around committing potential crimes at every turn. That's a feature unique to your side of the discussion.

Err, your side of the dogma.

I see here on my twitter, which is what I did say after all, that I'm unable to follow your posts. Either you closed your account, or blocked me from being able to read what you write on there.

Being called shrill from you doesn't exactly count for much as it's a trait you seem to hold high esteem. As do you seem to hold dogma, and dishonesty in high regard.

I love the tone of this post here though - you've got that persecuted victim bit down pat. Those poor strawmen - they never deserved that kind of abuse.

Posted by: Justicar | July 19, 2011 11:29 AM

So if someone doesn't blog everything they feel about a topic, if they blog most of what they feel, but don't want to make all their thoughts public, they're dishonest?

There is no evidence ERVs comments are anything but trolling. Also when one is privy to relevant information that you cannot reveal the honest thing to do is say. ERV did not say so in the original post.

So yes, she was less than honest. Not as dishonest as those she is allowing to comment in support of her though. One would have thought having the likes of Justicar, Wow, Mr DNA and others being your most vocal supporters would give someone cause to think. None of them are honest, all of them are sexist pigs. If ERV wants their company that is up to her. But she should know it will reflect poorly on her.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 19, 2011 11:31 AM

Did you stop to think for half of a fucking second that maybe, just maybe, *I* had ACTUALLY been in a situation where I could have been raped ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS and *I* thought Watson (or anyone) comparing her absolutely BENIGN encounter on the same level as the HELL I went though one of THE MOST DISGUSTING things I have ever personally witnessed?

One of the themes you'll find many of the women on the feminist side of the argument saying over and over again is that this is a thoroughly common experience -- I've recommended reading Shrodinger's Rapist as a well-written explanation. So you've got it backwards: I take it for granted that many women have had these experiences. My wife has talked to me about instances where she's been frightened by such possibilities.

The problem here is this bizarrely exaggerated claim that Rebecca Watson equated, as you say, benign encounter with being threatened with rape.

She did not. Anywhere. At any time. Her reaction was mild annoyance, which she expressed, and polite rejection, which she expressed, and a public discussion of courtesy to women at atheist meetings. There were no rape whistles, no screams, no police called, no temper tantrums. And this measured and entirely appropriate response launched a howling mob on her, and that's the greatest concern: that even the mildest of suggestions about a minor event can get such a condemning reaction from the atheist community is a worry.

It's obvious that this event has touched one of your triggers. I suggest, though, that your rightful anger is misdirected, and it shouldn't be aimed at a woman who made a mild complaint about a minor incident, but at the hate-mongers who are so incensed that a woman spoke up at all.

Posted by: PZ Myers | July 19, 2011 11:37 AM

"One of the themes you'll find many of the women on the feminist side of the argument saying over and over again is that this is a thoroughly common experience -- I've recommended reading Shrodinger's Rapist as a well-written explanation. So you've got it backwards: I take it for granted that many women have had these experiences. My wife has talked to me about instances where she's been frightened by such possibilities."

One of the themes you'll find is that because of the people I know, your experiences and reactions aren't worth hearing. Thank you for considering that I gave a fuck, but I don't.

"It's obvious that this event has touched one of your triggers. I suggest, though, that your rightful anger is misdirected, and it shouldn't be aimed at a woman who made a mild complaint about a minor incident, but at the hate-mongers who are so incensed that a woman spoke up at all."

There, there. Stop being such an emotional chick. Now, get a hold of yourself and direct your "rightful anger" where it belongs; that is to say, towards the people I tell you deserve it. Stop thinking for yourself there, darlin' - just listen to me and I'll learn you good.

"The problem here is this bizarrely exaggerated claim that Rebecca Watson equated, as you say, benign encounter with being threatened with rape.

She did not. Anywhere. At any time."

And because none of this is in the conversation, I have a reading recommendation for you that is completely unrelated to this. Please check out Schrodinger's Rapist. No connection to this or anything. Don't read into that.

Posted by: Justicar | July 19, 2011 11:46 AM

Wow.

Did you stop to think for half of a fucking second that maybe, just maybe, *I* had ACTUALLY been in a situation where I could have been raped ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS and *I* thought Watson (or anyone) comparing her absolutely BENIGN encounter on the same level as the HELL I went though one of THE MOST DISGUSTING things I have ever personally witnessed?

Except that it's patently obvious that Watson did no such thing. She said, "Guys don't do that," and that triggered a bunch of whiny, angry posts from a bunch of men saying "WHHHYYYYY CAN'T I DO THAT IT IT IS SO UNFAIR TO ASK ME NOT TO DO THAT!" Feminists, attempting to answer the question of "why" it's good not to do that, brought up the risk of rape that informs many women's decisions about where to go and at what time, etc. If you're pissed at someone for making this about the risk of sexual assault, be pissed at the whining angry dudes who simply couldn't accept a reasonable request from a woman about confining their propositioning to venues where such activities are appropriate, without demanding reasons, data, justifications, etc. Ask them why they couldn't just hear RW say, 'Please don't do that,' and just respond with, "Well, okay," or, "I honestly don't see why but it doesn't cost me anything so whatever."

AND THEN she goes on to attack a student. AND THEN she goes on to attack one of THE BEST proponents of EVERYONE in science and skepticism, EVER.

Yeah, nobody's really been able to explain why this is so fucking horrible. McGraf and Dawkins engage in public discourse because they don't want to be responded to? They can't handle it? Watson is this horrible unthinkable monster who crushes all in her path? What the fuck is going on here?

Did you ever stop and THINK why *I* would be so pissed off about this?

Well, even if I had, I would not have been able to envision any of the train of thought you detailed in the post I quoted above, because none of it makes any sense. First off, your facts are wrong, and second, the things you think flow from those facts actually don't.

It sucks that you were raped. I was sexually assaulted. It sucks. But for some reason I didn't take RW's reasonable request about men avoiding making unwanted sexual advances as trivializing my experiences or the experiences of any other survivors. I'm sorry you see it that way, but it's my opinion that your perception is off-base for whatever reason.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | July 19, 2011 11:49 AM

Prometheus;
I tried being polite and rational at the outset. The response to my saying it didn't make sense to me could someone explain it resulting in, essentially, lawl, you're retarded you fucking retarded retard woman-hating, misogynistic (why those have be put side by side is curious since one is the definition of the other. Well, it used to be. Now it just means "person who doesn't agree with me") retardy fuckwitted lying douche who knows goddamned good and well what it is but wants to pretend he doesn't because of privilege.

That might be an exact quote, but I'm not sure.

Posted by: Justicar | July 19, 2011 11:51 AM

"The problem here is this bizarrely exaggerated claim that Rebecca Watson equated, as you say, benign encounter with being threatened with rape."

Sorry, where was she threatened with rape, PZ?

Posted by: Wow | July 19, 2011 11:58 AM

Wow, you're kind of thick.

Rebecca Watson was not threatened with rape.

She did not claim to be threatened with rape.

It is a bizarrely exaggerated claim to suggest that she equated a relatively benign encounter with being threatened by rape.

Do I need to use littler words? Shorter sentences? Mime?

Posted by: PZ Myers | July 19, 2011 12:02 PM

Did you stop to think for half of a fucking second that maybe, just maybe, *I* had ACTUALLY been in a situation where I could have been raped ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS and *I* thought Watson (or anyone) comparing her absolutely BENIGN encounter on the same level as the HELL I went though one of THE MOST DISGUSTING things I have ever personally witnessed?

The serious experience that you've had, and those like it, are made more socially acceptable if all of those more minor experiences are let go without comment. It's the exact same argument as moderate religion providing a cover for the extremists. Let all of the minor stuff go and the Overton window moves a bit more to the side, and the extremists see an awful lot of justification for what (in their minds) is pretty much the same thing they're doing, and then nobody takes it seriously as it slides further and further over. The reason to nip these things in the bud is to try and make it more socially unacceptable to do the worse things, not just to nitpick.

Posted by: Carlie | July 19, 2011 12:04 PM

"but at the hate-mongers who are so incensed that a woman spoke up at all."

Yeah like that one that came on here and called Abbie a "gender traitor" for speaking up.

Posted by: JohnV | July 19, 2011 12:07 PM

And here's Carlie to draw the direct parallel between coffee and rape. Congratulations.
"if all of those more minor experiences are let go without comment."
"Let all of the minor stuff go and the Overton window moves a bit more to the side, and the extremists see an awful lot of justification for what (in their minds) is pretty much the same thing they're doing, and then nobody takes it seriously as it slides further and further over"

There is some direct pathway from thinking that the elevator incident is a non-event to it fosters a rape culture, and climate by providing rapists with cover.

So, is rape on the table or not? If not, why do people keep bringing it up (to include Watson)? You may not have be both ways, people.

Posted by: Justicar | July 19, 2011 12:12 PM

I thought RD commented on coffee/sex invitations not rape threats. I think the whole point of his comment was that RW did in fact not receive a rape threat in that elevator.

Yes. Which is what annoyed so many people. RW did not receive a rape threat, she did not claim to receive a rape threat, she received a much lesser insult, that her requests to be left alone would be so blindly ignored...so what Dawkins was essentially doing was dismissing her and telling her to shut up until she'd actually been threatened with rape.

Which would have been appropriate if RW had had Elevator Guy arrested for rape, or some other hysterical over-reaction.

Do I have to say this again? She didn't. The entire foundation of the angry reaction from the angry men is built on exaggeration and lies, where now even a measured response to a minor infraction becomes a great crime.

Posted by: PZ Myers | July 19, 2011 12:14 PM

"Those will only work if a person is thick but wants to learn. Wow has decided not bother letting facts get in the way."

Learn what? That you are asking mom for sex when you invite her round for a coffee and a chat with her son?

After all, you've made no assertion that this is anything other than a demand for sex. And on a first date, too.

Posted by: Wow | July 19, 2011 12:14 PM

*munching popcorn*

Posted by: Rhology | July 19, 2011 12:17 PM

"she received a much lesser insult, that her requests to be left alone would be so blindly ignored"

Well, why should I care?

I'll never see her.

99.9999999% of the world will never see her.

And if I do, I'll not touch her with someone else's 10' pole.

But I also see no reason why I should go along with her demands to act as she demands for ANY OTHER WOMAN.

I.e. you and she are going from "Don't proposition ME like that" to "Don't proposition ANYONE like that".

Sorry, she's not allowed to demand how I act with other humans, neither is she allowed to demand that other humans react the same way as she did.

So if her demands are that SHE not be propositioned like that, So what? I'll never meet her and wouldn't want to get to know her better, never mind have sex with her. If her demands are that OTHER WOMEN should not be propositioned like that, then she's got to answer the question "Why should we listen?" and have her demands summarily ignored.

After all, we ignore the idea that there IS a god until someone gets something to verify such a beings existence.

We do that will penny-ante stuff like "I feel creeped out" far more readily.

Posted by: Wow | July 19, 2011 12:20 PM

No, the serious experiences I had were complicated due to little girls and boys crying "WOLF!" with sexual violence.

Again, Rebecca Watson did not cry wolf.

It's all on youtube. You can see for yourself exactly what she said. Her actions are a matter of record.

I agree with you that if there had been a shrieking over-reaction, it would have been a disservice to women who have had real traumatic sexual encounters. But the only hysterical over-reaction was from people who repeatedly scream about what a horrible thing Watson did, and who have to exaggerate it to make it worth complaining about.

"Guys, don't do that" is not a false accusation of rape. Women being cautious in many otherwise innocuous situations because they have had threats of rape is not a false accusation of rape.

Posted by: PZ Myers | July 19, 2011 12:25 PM

*munching popcorn*

And spilling it as the groundstrokes and volleys alternate.

Posted by: Onkel Bob | July 19, 2011 12:31 PM

"Women being cautious in many otherwise innocuous situations because they have had threats of rape is not a false accusation of rape."

It is also not a license to dictate to the rest of the world that we have to tiptoe around one's emotional problems. Because Rebecca Watson is uncomfortable for reasons that fail to make many women uncomfortable (some of whom have been actually raped incidentally) gives her no warrant to tell me to do fuck all about anything. Let alone whom I may greet, or the contours of the conversation another person and myself might have.

Hey, black guys: I have some friendly advice about approaching white people at night - "don't do that". Just a word to the wise so you blacks will know how to make us whites feel more at ease.

If it fails in that situation, it fails in Rebecca's. It is not "polite advice" to admonish a group to vicariously wear the transgressions of other people. I won't be dictated to in that tone by anyone, male, female, white, black, gay, straight, christian, atheist, republican, democrat, none of it. No one has the right to tell one set of people with whom they may and may not communicate, how that communication should go, under what circumstances, at what times of the day and in what locations. She is not entitled to give advice on behalf of anyone but herself.

Particularly when there are women telling her to knock off trying to speak for them; they're big grown ups now and seem to be perfectly capable of representing their own thoughts. But that makes them gender traitors in these parts it seems.

Posted by: Justicar | July 19, 2011 12:33 PM

** Rebecca Watson experienced something mildly annoying, and ** she made a polite request that people stop doing it. To
** which Richard Dawkins effectively said, 'Well, I know
** people who had their genitals mutilated, so your complaint ** is too trivial to bother with.'

I thought Dawkins was responding regarding the righteousness of calling out students in speeches in a blog post you wrote on that topic.

Posted by: TR | July 19, 2011 12:44 PM

@PZ: "Demonstrably false. The whole affair of Dawkins' comment and Watson's anger over it emerged in what, the second or third post I had on the subject, after thousands of comments."

I'll concede that point. I can't speak for anybody else, but it is of course silly for anyone to become hysterical in their berating of RW for simply saying that she felt uncomfortable in the elevator. I can understand her discomfort. I don't have any problem whatsoever with her voicing her displeasure. It's all of the other stuff that has put me right off her- her arrogant calling out of Stef McGraw without Stef having an equal platform to respond; her hysterical "Privilege Delusion" post and the subsequent shit-storm that that caused, with thousands of RW supporters berating Dawkins as being a woman-hating misogynist. It was all very silly, and all a direct result of Rebecca Watson wildly overreacting.

For me the issue isn't "guy's, don't do that", and I'm disappointed that it is an issue for some people. But the subsequent idiocy from Watson, and the silence from the likes of yourself over the daft things that she went on to do, are what, I think, has riled the vast majority of the dissenters here. I don't think that anyone here is too bothered about the "guys, don't do that" stuff. It's the McGraw and Dawkins lynching that has really riled us. And attempting to say so on your blog, in a calm and clear manner, results in Caine, Fleur de Mal et al. calling us all "misogynists" and telling us all to "fuck off"!

I'm just some random anonymous guy on the internet who doesn't even have a blog- but Russell Blackford sums up what I've just been talking about here, and does it better than I can:

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/hows-it-going/#comment-98001

Posted by: Mr. DNA | July 19, 2011 12:52 PM

ERV,
We can treat both your own and Watson's experiences seriously without pretending that they are equally serious. One of them can be dealt with via a video and internet debate, and the other one, clearly not.

I am very sorry that you had such a terrible experience made worse by an unsympathetic police officer. I'm not sure that anyone is to blame for that, other than the police officer. You deserved to be taken seriously no matter what anyone else had said or done.

Elevator Guy wasn't a rapist, but he was creepy and some people didn't understand why. The issue of rape and sexual violence was discussed, often specifically to try to educate commentators who couldn't understand why women - generally, and not just Watson - might have a heightened sensitivity to such threats. The fuckwits commenting here don't seem to understand that. They see the threat of rape and violence as so remote that its mention can be used as an indicator for poor arguments by their opponents.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 19, 2011 12:54 PM

To which Richard Dawkins effectively said, 'Well, I know people who had their genitals mutilated, so your complaint is too trivial to bother with.'

It's important to note that Dawkins thereby injected himself into a conversation that didn't concern him at all. Up to then, no one was questioning Dawkins' priorities, belittling his work, or blaming Dawkins for any part of the EG incident. It was a completely gratuitous swipe at someone who had not (AFAIK at least) previously crossed him before.

Furthermore, I'm guessing RW never intended for any of her words to become this big an issue. She tossed a minor complaint into a speech that was otherwise full of positive comments, and probably expected everyone to just laugh a little at the idea of asking for a date in an elevator at 4am. It was Dawkins, and ONLY Dawkins, who made this thing such a ridiculous pile-on. If he really thought that female genital mutilation deserved more attention than RW's complaints, then he bloody well shouldn't have paid (and directed) so much attention to RW's complaints. For Dawkins to do what he did, and then blame others for responding to his actions, is childish and irresponsible.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 19, 2011 12:59 PM

Scroll down a little further on that B&W; post, Mr DNA, to comment #105, where I point out the rhetorical game Blackford played in that comment you liked.

Claiming that it is the McGraw/Dawkins lynching that has raised hackles is simply a lie, a barefaced, dishonest revision of history. McGraw was not in any way lynched; Dawkins was raked over the coals, that's for sure, but only after he made a painfully unaware comment. Most of the sturm and drang occurred over Watson's youtube video, which you now desperately struggle to ignore in order to pretend her angry reaction was unjustified. I can't fault people for telling you apologists for sexism, you hysterical serial exaggerators, you dishonest rationalizers to fuck off. You do realize that you can lie calmly and clearly, too, and it doesn't make it any prettier?

Posted by: PZ Myers | July 19, 2011 1:03 PM

It was all very silly, and all a direct result of Rebecca Watson wildly overreacting.

What about Dawkins' wild overreaction to her initial comments? Or are only chicks guilty of "wildly overreacting?"

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 19, 2011 1:05 PM

PZM at 115 and yes, rape threats are genuinely demeaning and worrisome
PZM at 151 RW did not receive a rape threat

Which one now PZ? Either RW got a rape threat and Dawkins is wrong making fun of her, or she didn't, and he's right. You're starting to sound like your average apologist trying to reconcile Judas's death descriptions.

Posted by: Mu | July 19, 2011 1:07 PM

"What about Dawkins' wild overreaction to her initial comments?"

What over-reaction?

"There are worse things out there" is no over-reaction. The complaints against him have been that he's not reacting ENOUGH.

"If you can explain without swearwords where the problem is, I'll listen" is not an over-reaction either.

Bafflement is not an over-reaction.

Posted by: Wow | July 19, 2011 1:09 PM

@ SallyStrange: "Accusing uppity feminists of mental illness? Now there's a novel approach. Good thing it hasn't been used over and over again for about a century by people who opposed women's rights, otherwise someone might think you were unsympathetic to women's rights. Oh wait..."

I don't really want to pull the Scottish card twice in the one thread, although that's exactly what I'm about to do. ;)

In my neck of the woods saying that someone "went mental" does not constitute a serious accusation of mental frailty: simply that the person overreacted. That's what I was saying, that she overreacted. Also, your posts crack me up. ;)

Posted by: Mr. DNA | July 19, 2011 1:14 PM

I haven't seen anyone take umbrage with the fact Watson said "Dude was creepy, and I was uncomfortable".
Indeed, I've yet to see a single person say that she's not entitled to think he's creepy and to feel uncomfortable. Like anyone else, she's perfectly entitled to what she feels.

The problems start to arise when someone says x makes me uncomfortable, therefore x makes everyone of my gender uncomfortable, and thus, this other gender may not do x.

My issue came incident to my asking why is her discomfort any sort of argument for me to do fuck all about anything. It is entirely possible to question whether her emotions were congruent with what was *actually* happening without saying that she's not entitled to feel them even though there was no *actual* reason to feel them. She was never in any danger.

Why this warranted an admonishment to men in general that they may not speak to women in general under some set of circumstances isn't obvious. I see no reason to think her feelings trump the ability of free men and women to decide on their own terms what conversations they'll enter into, with whom, and under what constraints.

And then all hell broke loose.

Not agreeing immediately that she was actually aggrieved (which she wasn't as a matter of fact) is to be labeled a misogynist, sexist, rape-enabler, rapist-in-waiting blah blah blah. Yeah, I'm not going to treat people with any degree of seriousness when that's the disposition they have out of the gate.

It's why I'm not religious; you and your ilk don't get a veto on when I may or may not *speak* to another human. And failing to take your authority to govern my life doesn't actually make me a misogynist. Labeling it as such immediately makes the word obsolete.

My response is appropriate to the histrionics: ridicule. It deserves little more.

Posted by: Justicar | July 19, 2011 1:21 PM

My response is appropriate to the histrionics...

Do you have a resonse that's appropriate to the FACTS as PZ and I have stated tham, without dispute, over and over in several threads now? Didn't think so. Just another moron ignoring the basic facts, crying about the horrible burden of having to listen to other people's concerns, and then accusing others of "histrionics." Hey, you really don't have to listen to us. Just like we don't have to listen to you.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 19, 2011 1:30 PM

*slaps forehead*

I have just posted a response to PZ that I was in the middle of writing and which had not been edited in any way whatsoever. It therefore reads like a load of misspelt, rambling nonsense. I won't bother editing it now. I'll just leave it as it is and you see the crazed inner-workings of my pea-sized brain at work.

Posted by: Mr. DNA | July 19, 2011 1:35 PM

RW was perturbed. She used a publicly funded format that purported to be for the advancement of women and skepticism to complain.

That was wasteful and selfish....like most of what she does.

When someone pointed this out online, she hijacked a public lecture and put their observations in the same context as rape threats.

Dawkins pointed out the absurdity of implying moral equivalence when perturbed and "disagreed with" in two nations where women have legal standing versus what happens in the many countries in which women have no legal rights.

That is not the same as saying:

'Well, I know people who had their genitals mutilated, so your complaint is too trivial to bother with.'

That is saying: You are drawing attention away from literal life and death matters at the confluence of skeptical and feminist concerns.

Do your self professed job or get out of the way and let someone with global perspective do it for you.

A good example of what would happen if RW stepped out of the spotlight is, DAY CARE, as opposed to keg parties, 'impromptu' weddings, celebrity party pics and game-shows at TAM.

Posted by: Prometheus | July 19, 2011 1:40 PM

PZ Myers: Yes. Which is what annoyed so many people. RW did not receive a rape threat, she did not claim to receive a rape threat, she received a much lesser insult, that her requests to be left alone would be so blindly ignored...so what Dawkins was essentially doing was dismissing her and telling her to shut up until she'd actually been threatened with rape.

Her video is not just about the fact that she was hit on despite asking to be left alone. She highlighted that she was alone in the elevator late at night. She implied being afraid of rape. This is what a large part of the discussion has been about, including in the thread on which RD commented. It is obvious, at least to me, that RD's comment is about the large number of people who were arguing about rape in the context of RD's elevator ride.

Which would have been appropriate if RW had had Elevator Guy arrested for rape, or some other hysterical over-reaction.

Do I have to say this again? She didn't. The entire foundation of the angry reaction from the angry men is built on exaggeration and lies, where now even a measured response to a minor infraction becomes a great crime.

I think RD is better described as "strident", rather than "angry man".

This is the type of discussion to which RD replied:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/always_name_names.php

#21 Posted by: David Marjanović | July 2, 2011 10:10 AM
Juju, you're misquoting Dawkins. It's "the Great Juju on the Mountain".

a pretty minor faux pas in a private situation. The guy who "propositioned" her did so in what sounds like a clumsy but not-particularly-awful way

He asked her into his room, in an elevator, that late at night? If that's not creepy, I don't know what is. That guy could as well have worn a sign saying "I am Schrödinger's Rapist" around his neck.
FFS! Have you never been bullied? Do you know fear at all?
ERV, this has to be dragged out in public. Otherwise, it'll never stop. Perhaps that one person would stop if directly confronted, but the next 20 wouldn't.

This is how people understood RW's video, from the same thread:

#165 Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Designated Economist | July 2, 2011 12:16 PM
...
It's obvious to me that Rebecca was concerned about rape. That's something that happens to women a lot. Yet you don't seem to understand this concept and so ask a pointless question. Rape is probably the ultimate misogynist act. Elevator Guy was playing rapist wannabee so strongly that even normally clueless me recognized it. So in answer to your question, it is an example of inherent misogyny.
...

Your view that the important message from that video was about her asking to be left alone is clearly lost on many of the posters.

Posted by: Michael | July 19, 2011 1:42 PM

Um, I don't follow this question.

Um, that's precisely my point.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 19, 2011 1:43 PM

PZ Myers said:

"But the only hysterical over-reaction was from people who repeatedly scream about what a horrible thing Watson did, and who have to exaggerate it to make it worth complaining about."

That is either self-delusion of the first water, or simply an out-and-out lie.

On your own blog's comment threads, as well as Skepchick.org's posts (do you think Mindy's anti-Dawkins screed and associated letter is not an hysterical over-reaction?) and comment threads, and other pro-feminist blogs both the anti-Watson crowd and the pro-Watson crowd have overloaded the comment threads with "hysterical over-reaction".

I find it very hard to believe you are blind to the black and white fact that a majority of folks on both sides of this coin are over-reacting.

If you honestly are unable to perceive the "hysterical over-reaction" coming from both sides of the argument, then you are indeed suffering some kind of self-delusion or a rather extreme instance of self-confirmation bias (if I understand that term correctly).

As to most of your commentary here, such outright disingenuosness, word-manipulation, and blatant distortions of what people have actually been saying are extremely disturbing to see coming from a supposedly respected academic. It's very much the kind of rhetorical trickery one expects from the theist lunatics you constantly rage about.

You have played a primary role in fanning the fire of this mess, and to claim otherwise is dishonest and beneath the pale.

Posted by: John Greg | July 19, 2011 1:56 PM

@Justicar
Or his bucket.

Posted by: dustbubble | July 19, 2011 2:05 PM

I have been on the opposite side of the Watsonites for weeks. I'm going to the Texas Freethinkers Convention in October and questioning whether or not I want to stay to listen to PZ. I am just sick of this shit already. I'm 100% with you on this, ERV. I was appalled when I read the "Dear Dick" letters, and even stated in response that "This sexual assault victim sides with Dawkins." If that makes me a gender-traitor, then fine by me.

Posted by: Bee | July 19, 2011 2:08 PM

PZ: Did you get to discuss this with Dawkins, and are you going to blog about that? I'd be interested in reading about it.

Posted by: ErkLR | July 19, 2011 2:15 PM

I'm done. People aren't listening, and are still straining to justify the noise of the last few weeks. I'll leave it to women to speak, and recommend this one comment.

Posted by: PZ Myers | July 19, 2011 2:20 PM

Hi, Lyra. As most of the commenters here have been saying, the Elevator Guy stuff isn't the real issue. The real issue is Watson's treatment of Stef McGraw and Richard Dawkins. PZ thinks that we're all just lying about that, and that our real beef is that we just don't want the wimmenz to be able to speak their mind. But that's just crap. Fuck Elevator Gate- it's beside the point. The point is that RW treated McGraw and Dawkins very, very badly and we think that this makes her a poor skeptic, and a poor front for the skeptic movement.

Posted by: Mr. DNA | July 19, 2011 2:28 PM

yech! It's happening to me now. Waa. See what you made me do.
should read "Words mean different things in different countries".

Posted by: dustbubble | July 19, 2011 2:33 PM

Haw dustbubble, haud yer wheesht ya bampot. Wur tryin' tae huv a serious discussion n that n yoor jist bammmin me up!

/Scots
/spam

Posted by: Mr. DNA | July 19, 2011 2:35 PM

@212 It's on another forum. You still want it?

Posted by: Lyra | July 19, 2011 2:37 PM

Sally: that's daft.
Only people on your side are insisting this is a chance for a hookup. There is no reason to suppose it was.

As such, we have no reason to entertain the idea, despite Greta's fucking retarded article, that talking to other people is about getting laid.

You people insist it had to be sex. Nothing says it was that. nothing implies that. It's just a guess on your part.

So, no, it isn't about getting laid. It's about talking to people without being labeled a rapist.

And all that other histrionics bullshit you bring along.

The one thing I've learned from this is that apparently quite a large number of women are incapable of navigating their way through the world with a roving wall of heavily armed guys lest every random guy in the vicinity try to rape her. That demanding of women that they suffer the indignity of being spoken to is far too great a burden for many of them to bear.

How you people ever leave home is beyond me.

Posted by: Justicar | July 19, 2011 2:42 PM

PZ Myers at 207:

"I'm done. People aren't listening, and are still straining to justify the noise of the last few weeks. I'll leave it to women to speak, and recommend one comment."

Oh my. What a pompous overpuffed hypocrite.

And that "one comment" he linked to is a good example of the kind of rhetorical trickery and over-reaction we've seen all over the 'net where the Angry Poster™ is misrepresenting and distorting the words of another poster to make their argument.

Query: Should any True Feminist® listen to anything Myers says? Isn't he just another privileged old white male academic who simply cannot understand a woman's experience in the world? Oh well, at least he can rest easy knowing he's neither British nor filthy rich.

Posted by: John Greg | July 19, 2011 2:53 PM

Is it just me, or is it a fact that PZ does not agree that Dawkins' comments were to the hysterical, pitchfork-wielding crowd and not Watson? That seems to be the real bone of contention, and I wonder if PZ did bring this up to Dawkins at the conference? Or has there been confirmation (one way or the other) by Dawkins. I have to admit that I have avoided this whole brouhaha once the issue moved away from the imbalance of power issue to the sexism one, and have no desire to troll the cesspool of comments (from both sides) to try and track down that one point. I am not even sure it was addressed (as opposed to PZ trying to tell Dawkins why his comments were inappropriate - which sidesteps the whole issue of to whom the comments were directed). I do not want to trouble others, so please don't do the work for me, but if it is quick - has this issue been resolved?

Re: the imbalance of power, I read (from Stef's post and Ophelia's) that Dawkins and others have responded (ie, "called out" like some juvenile street gang or Macho Western) to people in speeches, but the analogy fails in my mind since they had different origins. When Dawkins speaks out against McGrath, for example, McGrath has already put his arguments out into the public sphere though books, talks, etc, and it is appropriate to use the same venue to respond. An equal sharing. Since it isn't a discussion where people are side by side and can hash the issue out, it is traditional that someone makes his (or her) case in a speech, and someone else used their own speech to respond, and so forth, until maybe there is a debate (or better, an actual discussion). If I wrote a blog post about something, and the person involved took offense (or just noticed it), then I would expect them to respond in the same manner - a blog post, with links, detailing the discussion for all to follow. To respond in the way Watson did (especially to lump Stef in with the sick-bastard-would-be-rapists...not cool, not professional, just not done. There are reasons (other than tradition) for doing things this way - not the least of which is an equal opportunity for discussion or debate. To me the lack of professionalism is sad. The hysterical rants by both sides has been disgusting, made more so by the lack of even an attempt at discussion.

That's my two cents (three in this economy, but I'm giving it away today for free). Take it as you will.

Posted by: Badger3k | July 19, 2011 2:57 PM

@209:

Hello, Mr. DNA! I can't speak very much on Watson's treatment of either McGraw or Dawkins, as I don't follow her, so I don't know what she's doing much. I do know that she called out McGraw for some statement publically (which I think wasn't nice, as we're all on the same side and McGraw didn't have an equal ability to respond) and I do know that she called for a boycott of Dawkins (which I don't agree with, as I think Dawkins has a pretty good track record on this kind of thing), but other than that, I'm pretty much in the dark. If she's being awful about something, then I think it's fine to criticism her for it. It's just that most of the posts I've been reading haven't been centered in on her behavior towards Dawkins or McGraw, they've been focused in on the Elevator thing.

Posted by: Lyra | July 19, 2011 2:59 PM

What does OM mean? It seems like the folks with that royal title tend to be the most vicious and petty of the phargulayoids.

I also like PZ is now denying he has censored anything. The guy is the Lenin of scienceblogs, by far the biggest censor. He even keeps a bizarre list of banned people with commentary about their offenses. He takes great pleasure in the "power" being a blog celebratory bring him.

Contrast this to ERV or Orac- in which I have yet to see a ban. In Orac's case, this is despite have a number of out-of-control anti-vaccine activists. But he lets them speak because he hosts an open blog. Crank, echo chambers tend to do the opposite.

Posted by: DAlek | July 19, 2011 3:07 PM

ERV, it sounds like you're saying that it's the fault of people doing the kinds of things that Rebecca did that you didn't get taken seriously when you went to the police. Is that your contention? Are you making a line between complaining about being hit on to police not believing women who complain about harassment?

Posted by: Carlie | July 19, 2011 3:10 PM

Abbie @218:

I think we all lost view of something important: we are seing and reacting to all this primarily through our internet personas. I strongly disagree with PZ, to the point where I find his comments here quite hypocritical and tainted. yet, I know for a fact that he is in real life a kind, gentle, smart and critical person (never met him myself, but saw videos, and lots of comments confirming this).

I myself can sound like a fucking asshole in these parts, yet I'm a strong feminist, a gentleman in every situations, and on general concensus quite a kind and generous person (although I do say so myself. And my friends. And people I meet for the first time. And the thousands of fans I've met face to face. Still I could be a tinsy bit biased. After all, I'm talking about me, and let's face it, I love me).

To try and make an analogy regarding Stef/Rebecca and the power imbalance: I think it would be horribly unfair and quite a fuck-move of me to be on stage, in front of the thousands (sometimes tens of thousands) attending one of my concerts, and use this platform to point to a guy in the audience that mocked my band's name on the web and that I know is right there, in the front row. Mind you, if I had to point out everyone that mocks my band name ( It's Fairyland, FFS!), the average concert would last about 3 years. I think it's just wrong to do so, and this is my main problem with PZ's take on that particular issue.

My point? None. I haven't lost any respect for anyone involved in this discussion, because in the end I'm convinced this would go a totaly different way if everybody was speaking face to face.

I would be very happy to take Rebecca out for a coffee IRL. I think she must be a very nice and intelligent person. Her internet alter-ego, though? Not much.

My 2 cents (and auto-promotion, because I AM an attention whore. It's a full part of my job decription).

Posted by: Phil Giordana, FCD, aka Schroedinger's Dog | July 19, 2011 3:16 PM

ERV @#218

"PZ-- Go fuck yourself."

Moral equivalence.

Pink Microscopes=Molestation=Rape=Mutilation=Murder="Will you please like me?"

Gravity is assigned by your geographical and or ideological proximity to PZ Meyers and pals.

Told you he was an asshole.

What a dirty and disgusting little angle for men and women of first world privilege to use in shirking their ethical responsibilities to fellow humans being decimated by systematized theistic misogynistic murder and neglect.

Posted by: Prometheus | July 19, 2011 3:30 PM

Marco @232
Gonnae no dae that!

Posted by: bhoytony | July 19, 2011 3:38 PM

Phil Giordana:

I'm convinced this would go a totaly different way if everybody was speaking face to face.

I completely agree with this. The internet makes everybody hate each other. If this was a panel discussion we'd be having a more productive and amiable exchange of ideas. Sometimes its easy to forget that behind some comment that I think is insane or immoral is somebody that I may get on with very well in real life!

Posted by: Notung | July 19, 2011 3:43 PM

PZ thought the argument was something else, but if I go and collect all the comments that Dawkins was replying to making Watson's encounter into something much larger than Watson thought it was at the time, will PZ change his mind?

Posted by: Peter | July 19, 2011 3:53 PM

As a male atheist who has paid occasional attention to the larger Skeptics' movement, I have to say that this whole "Elevatorgate" fiasco has made both sides come out looking absolutely fucking miserable. Why would I want to get involved with a movement where people treat each other this badly?

And while I'm sure that "Twatson" is not the worst epithet that's been thrown in this debate, it does make me pretty much lose all respect for you-- and for anyone else who resorts to playground-level name calling in what could actually be a fairly enlightening debate. I don't care what you've been called-- in what is supposed to be a rational debate among rational people, there's no excuse for it. And "they did it first" is the sort of excuse used by third-graders and politicians.

There are personal exceptions, but both sides seem far more interested in constructing strawmen and tearing them down to demonstrate how awesomely right they are than they are in actually coming to an understanding with the other side. In that sense, a lot of atheists and skeptics are really no better than the religious nuts who are supposedly the actual enemy. Anyone want to join me in starting a skeptical movement with people who are ACTUALLY INTERESTED in treating other people like actual fucking human beings?

Posted by: Andrew | July 19, 2011 3:59 PM

@bhoytony 233:

Hoow? ;)

@ Spence 240

Since I'm going full-on Scot in my posts so far, I find I much prefer the Scottish phrase, "Geddit up ye'z"

hehe

Full disclosure, I was actually born in England, but there's Scottish in my heritage somewhere, and a bit of French. Thus, I have the worst traits of all three nationalities... :P

Posted by: Marco the Beagle | July 19, 2011 4:08 PM

Oh, and Justicar?

You have a group of people before you, many of us willing to change our minds if a sufficient reason comes along.

Sufficient reasons were repeatedly explained in numerous threads about this EG incident. The fact that you're still demanding "sufficient reason" while ignoring the reasons already given, on both PZ's and Greg's blog at least, only proves you're not really looking, or listening, at all. And since you're not listening to us, there's no reason why we should waste any more time listening to you.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 19, 2011 4:15 PM

Raging Bee @242:

Can't you give Abbie a break and admit that, like every other single actor in this fuckfest, she is pissed off and irritated?

Do you want me to link to that specific comment on her own blog where she was called a "gender traitor"?

"Gender traitor"! If that's not one of the worst exemples of despicable millitant terms ever, than color me fuckpink*!

*I wonder what that would look like. Quick, Google!

Posted by: Phil Giordana, FCD, aka Schroedinger's Dog | July 19, 2011 4:17 PM

Seeing this rant by ERV, and the previous ones on the topic, makes me regret that Greg was too nice to resort to "calling her a [rest of sentence deleted because I don't feel like lowering myself to that level at the moment ... perhaps some other time] so she gets the point". Mule, indeed.

Posted by: Irene | July 19, 2011 4:23 PM

Kay. I've kinda been watching the whole shitstorm at a distance, but here's what I've dredged out of the mess:

RW is at a convention, and Some Guy approaches her in a way that applies uncomfortble pressure of which Some Guy is probably blissfully unaware. He's never had to deal with it, has no concept of it, honest mistake. RW points out that confined spaces with timers really can apply uncomfortable pressure, various people say various things about it, some agreeing with her, some(probably also from people who have no experience with that sort of situation) decidedly unkind about it.

RD says something about it which is likely meant just to point out that the problem RW was pointing out was relatively minor, compared to what a great many of the world's women face, but he does so in a way that comes across as kind of rude and insensitive. To be fair, he is famous for being very rude when he thinks it will get his point across well. For an example, just ask him how he feels about the Pope.

And then we get blog posts like this, which start out quite well, but degenerate sadly in to name-calling and are more likely to serve as examples of How Not To Be Helpful than of anything else.

On the bright side, it does nicely point out that RD, although he may not be *good* at feminism, is in favour of alleviating issues that affect primarily women. He might not be great at spotting them, but he isn't shy about using his resources to say in clear terms that he wishes to be counted on the same side as RW. It's as subtle as a sldgehammer, but that's kind of his thing.

(Personally, I like leading people who hold logically unsustainable views into looking at two parts of their view that clash horribly either with eachother or reality and enjoying the ensuing uncomfortable silence. I'm a bit of a jerk sometimes.)

TL:DR version: Just because someone else has a worse problem, does not mean that the person with the lesser problem does not actually have a problem. Dude who lost his thumb in a freak stapler accident is not perfectly fine just because there are people who have lost both legs to landmines. Thumbless dude just can't say his problems are worse than those of the person with no legs.

And RW is not wallowing in pity. She pointed out a problem, and then for some reason a sewage main was vented through a jet turbine.

Posted by: Dav-Larr | July 19, 2011 4:29 PM

So, Lyra, how would a guy go about asking if you want to continue a conversation over coffee?

Posted by: Peter | July 19, 2011 4:31 PM

@217

"I'd like to have coffee with you sometime. Would you be interested in going to a coffee shop with me tomorrow?"

"I'd like to have coffee with you sometime. Here is my phone number. If you're interested, call me before [insert some time] and we can go out."

Or, if it is a time that coffee shops would be open and/or she hasn't indicated she's going to bed

"Would you like to go out somewhere for coffee?"

To me, it's the "would you like to go back to my hotel room at 4am that sets off "sexual intent" flashing lights, not the coffee. He could have asked if she'd like to go back to his hotel room at 4am and watch TV or inspect his book collection and it would still have the same connotations.

Posted by: Lyra | July 19, 2011 4:47 PM

Shoot, I meant that last comment at 251. Not sure what happened there. Oops.

Posted by: Lyra | July 19, 2011 4:48 PM

Irene@252
How exactly is Jerry Coyne "chiming in here wisely in support of ERV"? He only comments that it was a lovely act by Dawkins and that childcare at these conferences is important.There is no mention of Abby,never mind support.
Please don't let the facts get in the way of your snide commentary.

Posted by: bhoytony | July 19, 2011 5:00 PM

Lyra/Peter

I think the other point is that he wasn't continuing a conversation. This was the social equivalent of a telemarketing cold call.

Posted by: Leslie | July 19, 2011 5:05 PM

Good for you, Sally.

Posted by: Peter | July 19, 2011 5:10 PM

Actually, I was specifically asking someone who was a bit clueless with noticing flirting, sorry, there isn't any further implication, I'm sure I'm unintentionally sexist reasonably often though, if that helps.

Posted by: Peter | July 19, 2011 5:12 PM

Spence @241:

Oh oui, et il y en a pleins d'autres si besoin :)

Posted by: Phil Giordana, FCD, aka Schroedinger's Dog | July 19, 2011 5:16 PM

Oh, you're one of those, and a hearty fuck you to, and I won't be answering any of your questions, because you're silly, buh-bye.

Posted by: Peter | July 19, 2011 5:19 PM

@256

Thanks, and you're welcome! ^_^

@Leslie/259
Could be. I believe he was present when she was having a conversation with smallish a group in a pub-ish place, but not participating a lot (although I'm not sure), and I think he was at her presentation, so he could still have been legitimately interested in her based on things she had said. And I don't think non-sexual cold calls are necessarily a bad thing; I think that a cold call of something along the lines of what SallyStrange said ("Your talk was fascinating, here's my number, if you'd be willing to speak further about it I'd be delighted. Can I buy you coffee sometime?") is perfectly fine.

That being said, I do think cold calls for sex are pretty creepy, but that might be influenced by the fact that I'm not a real fan of stranger sex. So, yes, that would make it additionally creepy in my eyes.

Posted by: Lyra | July 19, 2011 5:19 PM

Personally, I'm not at all opposed to cold-calls for sex, but when I'm looking for that, I go to a sex club. Not an atheist conference.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | July 19, 2011 5:26 PM

You are a twat with a raging case of internet balls who is brave as shit when you have a room full of people to do your heavy lifting. who the FUCK made you the deciderer of what is misogyny? Your fans? You know, the people you allow to rampantly abuse people on your blog, only stepping in when the victims of that abuse have the fucking TEMERITY to fight back? THEN you get uppity as hell, so as to slap down any and all dissent.

Coming from the guy who left a bloody ginormous comment that was nothing but a re-paste of the entire thread, this sort of asinine, content-free hate-fest is...

...not at all surprising, really.

and if it deserves such high fucking praise, why haven't you praised it yet?

He DID praise it, you moron. And you quoted that praise at the very beginning of your comment!

Since this thread has now been taken over by blustering halfwits like John C. Welch, I think we can safely conclude that the argument is over.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 19, 2011 5:31 PM

Damn you people for bringing this shit up again. Even if reading all this is incredibly lulzy (the phrase 'u mad?' has never seemed more appropriate), its depressing seeing intelligent people stoop to making bad arguments. But since I'm here...

As far as I can see it, Watson has every right to feel threatened by a stranger in an elevator. Just as I have the right to be terrified when a black person sits near me on a bus (I'm not, but I think its a fitting parallel). In both cases, we have beliefs about what sort of threat the other person potentially represents, and our discomfort is based on both those beliefs & the way we perceive the nature & actions of the other person (EG was perceived as 'creepy', the black person could be seen as thuggish or something).

But... there is nothing wrong with the way Stef responded on her blog. Agree with her or not, Stef voiced her opinion in an honest & straightforward manner.

Watson's reaction to Stef's dissent, on the other hand, was shocking. I hope there is little argument on that point: what RW did (solely in regards to the CFI conference) was unprofessional at best & downright deplorable at worst. For the way she handled that situation, I think RW is a bitch, or at least, was acting in a way which makes her look like one.

Next up: Dawkins! First off, I'll admit I am a huge fan of his, even if I take issue with some of the things he says.

I don't know exactly what sort of context Dawkin's wrote his comments in, but I don't see how they're so shocking to some. He voiced his opinion, which I interpreted as essentially thus:

Depicting yourself as a victim due to you experiencing feelings of fear when encountering a guy making a clumsy pick-up attempt is overreacting. And to those who are actual victims of rape & sexual assault (a club which Dawkins himself belongs), it may be seen as a stupid move which belittles their own horrific experiences.

He didn't endorse EG's behavior, he didn't tell Watson to shut up & not to comment on how she felt. From what I saw, he told her to stop acting like a drama queen.

And for that, he's labeled a misogynistic, privileged old jackass. Bit of an overreaction, I think.

Also: I don't know how much RW has been opposing Dawkins (I'd rather not give her blog traffic after this incident), but if she is actually telling people not to read Dawkin's books... she is a total cunt. The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and Unweaving the Rainbow are some of my favorite books, and anyone speaking ill of them had better have some damn good reasons to dissuade others from enjoying them as much as I did.

Posted by: Phil | July 19, 2011 6:08 PM

I do not support any campaign against Dawkins; it's silly for you to berate me for agreeing with every last little thing that Rebecca Watson has done, when I don't. But I also understand how Watson can be personally very angry with Dawkins for trivializing the concerns of some women -- and yes, rape threats are genuinely demeaning and worrisome.

Indeed they are. At what point was EG an actual rape THREAT? not just a socially awkward-bordering-on-creepy dude with a really craptacular sense of timing and appropriate location. but an actual rape threat? Even RW never called it that. That's been what you and your band of prats has been doing.

There is nothing dubious about Rebecca Watson's claims. Do you really think it so incredibly unlikely that a woman would be asked to come to a man's hotel room? Weird.

Isn't one of the hallmarks of science to acknowledge that testimonials aren't as reliable as actual data? Any cop on the planet can tell you how astoundingly bad human memory is in terms of reliability, especially after a long night of drinking. If they can't, a good defense attorney can.

That said, I, and rather a lot of others have no doubt that she's being honest both about the incident, and her feelings on it, no matter what your lot think. It is her behavior towards stef and the constant pounding of ALL DISAGREEMENT WITH RW ON THIS = MISOGYNY that is pissing a lot of people off, along with the more idiotic statements about how rape and violence don't ever affect men, and the disgusting dismissal of Dawkins' personal experience with it as "not counting, since it happened when he was a child".

But do go ahead thinking we are saying RW has no right to feel what she felt. Why let the truth ruin your narrative?

It is in the nature of a blog post that you typically want something that you can link to. Richard Dawkins' comments on my blog were linkable; their source was also verifiable, and I refrained from saying anything until I confirmed them (there were also several posts from people pretending to be Richard Dawkins that I had to delete). His word at the conference was sufficient to believe him, but it was brief--I'm waiting for more details. When there's information about how organizers can apply for aid, I'll publish it. Do you seriously believe I'm unhappy about something I've thought was a great idea for years? Dawkins is making a great contribution to the community with this plan.

and yet you can't bring yourself to say that on your blog. You have to wait for the details. Bollocks. It takes five minutes if that to say "What Dawkins talked about, regarding the RDF helping fund child care at future TAMs is amazing, and welcome. I for one congratulate him on this action which will be a huge benefit to all attendees, and really help expand the potential audience for TAM. We don't have details yet, but as soon as the RDF and JREF release them, I'll be sure to post them here."

A fucking paragraph man. I just wrote it for you. How hard is that? Is your pride and ego really that important that you have to wait for organizational details?

I've had no problem with Stef McGraw, and have even said so: I encourage her to express her opinions. As for "tearing her down"...nonsense. Her opinions were discussed, and some agreed with her, and some disagreed. Speaking of dubious claims without evidence -- what exactly did Watson say about McGraw that was so horrible? There's a terrible dearth of substance in your hysterical claims of opression.

Bullshit. You've either read the details about what people think about watson's stunt, in which case you're lying about the dearth of substance, or you haven't read anyone's opinion but the ones that agree with you, in which case you're talking out of your ass.

Given that you say you read ERV, and abbie was *very* specific about the problem people have with how Watson treated Stef, your ability to claim ignorance on the subject is low. So, you're just lying about the dearth of substance, because you don't want to think about it, that maybe RW was, in that instance, way the fuck out of line.

And finally, I've been accused of censoring opinions on my blog. Counter-evidence: Justicar is not banned, despite being one of the most idiotic, shrill, dishonest, contemptible scumbag liars on this subject anywhere on the interwebs.

I will pay airfare for you, me, and justicar to be in the same place so I can record you saying those precise words to him on camera for the fucking world to see, you bloviated fatuous coward.

125:

I also have some personal, private information about some of the participants in the argument, facts about some of the people on the anti-Watson side, that make their comments look self-serving and prejudicial to me. They're personal and private, though, so they are irrelevant, and I'm not going to take the cheap shot of revealing them.

Nameless threats? Really? "I know things that would embarass people" with the implication being we better STFU?

REALLY?

Here, try the original:

"I have in my hand a list of names of members of the communist party"

McCarthy did it better. To which, I will reply with the words of my (probable) distant relation:

"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

133:

One of the themes you'll find many of the women on the feminist side of the argument saying over and over again is that this is a thoroughly common experience -- I've recommended reading Shrodinger's Rapist as a well-written explanation. So you've got it backwards: I take it for granted that many women have had these experiences. My wife has talked to me about instances where she's been frightened by such possibilities.

Golly thanks unca PZ for telling ERV about her own experiences and how she should face them. How rude of her to not take your recommendation to spend her days quailing in fear and berating men for not making her feel safe. How NAIVE she was to take her safety into her own hands and through sweat, pain, and probably some blood, (I'll go with my assumption that I've a tad more actual experience in what her kind of training involves than you do), pulled muscles and days when you can barely goddamned walk home ensured she will never, ever feel helpless again.

How stupid of her to actually do something instead of standing on the sidelines thrusting victimology tracts at people.

151:

Do I have to say this again? She didn't. The entire foundation of the angry reaction from the angry men is built on exaggeration and lies, where now even a measured response to a minor infraction becomes a great crime.

Bullshit, and stop trying to tell me what I think, you're not qualified. The foundation of MY reaction is her abuse of the power of the podium, and the requirement by you and others that any disagreement with your views of feminism equal misogyny, and your hypocritical crying about how mean other people on other blogs are, when yours is such a fucking cesspool.

Being told men can't be raped, don't have to fear rape, it's only rape if a man's penis penetrates a woman's orifice et al is just precious fucking icing on this cake.

161:

Again, Rebecca Watson did not cry wolf.

It's all on youtube. You can see for yourself exactly what she said. Her actions are a matter of record.

Watson's initial post and video aren't what we're pissed about. There, was that simple enough for you, or should I use "littler" words?

But then, you've spent a lot of time telling us what we're thinking. So why stop now?

166:

Rebecca Watson experienced something mildly annoying, and she made a polite request that people stop doing it. To which Richard Dawkins effectively said, 'Well, I know people who had their genitals mutilated, so your complaint is too trivial to bother with.'

except he wasn't really talking to watson as much as to you and the other alarmists.

But hey, you're always right, you're PZ Fuckin' Myers

170:

Oh. So "bitching out" translates to "disagreeing with and explaining why." Good to know. Kinda tells me a lot about you.

"Rashomon". You should see it some time, it may teach you something about human nature. Even if you are PZ Fuckin' Myers.

171:

Elevator Guy wasn't a rapist, but he was creepy and some people didn't understand why. The issue of rape and sexual violence was discussed, often specifically to try to educate commentators who couldn't understand why women - generally, and not just Watson - might have a heightened sensitivity to such threats. The fuckwits commenting here don't seem to understand that. They see the threat of rape and violence as so remote that its mention can be used as an indicator for poor arguments by their opponents.

Actually, we can both see and understand why RW and other women might feel creepy, ill at ease, or even frightened by that. What *your* side is dismissing are the women who disagree with RW's premise that such a situation is ALWAYS creepy, and ALWAYS inappropriate. It is not, and it is foolish to imply that. For RW and many others, it is always creepy and inappropriate. For, from what I can tell, just as many other women, it is not.

Neither side is exclusively right in how they see that situation.

173:

Furthermore, I'm guessing RW never intended for any of her words to become this big an issue. She tossed a minor complaint into a speech that was otherwise full of positive comments, and probably expected everyone to just laugh a little at the idea of asking for a date in an elevator at 4am. It was Dawkins, and ONLY Dawkins, who made this thing such a ridiculous pile-on. If he really thought that female genital mutilation deserved more attention than RW's complaints, then he bloody well shouldn't have paid (and directed) so much attention to RW's complaints. For Dawkins to do what he did, and then blame others for responding to his actions, is childish and irresponsible.

Actually, it seems to be RW's bullshit attack on Stef, and her behavior in that incident that were the flashpoint. It's just that you are dismissing Stef's reaction because she disagrees with RW, so fuck the little gender-traitor bitch, right?

175:

Claiming that it is the McGraw/Dawkins lynching that has raised hackles is simply a lie, a barefaced, dishonest revision of history. McGraw was not in any way lynched;

So now you're not only a biologist, you're the world authority on how people see a situation? I could give a fuck less about EG, or how RW saw him. Not my farm, not my pig. But RW's behavior and attacking of Stef McGraw from the podium is something that comes very close to something I've been doing for some years now, and THAT did in fact raise my hackles.

Funny how a lynching doesn't look that bad when you're not the one swinging in the breeze. Even if you allow for it not being a virtual lynching, it was a bullshit attack on someone powerless, in that moment, to fully respond. The fact you refuse to even CONSIDER that viewpoint, *even if you don't agree*, shows how little you value any viewpoints but your own.

185:

The problems start to arise when someone says x makes me uncomfortable, therefore x makes everyone of my gender uncomfortable, and thus, this other gender may not do x.

Bingo. RW does not represent all women. She represents herself, and maybe the women who agree with her, as long as they choose to allow her to. The arrogance of making her the spokesperson for all women, or even all feminists boggles the mind.

202:

And anyone who tells a woman to shut up when her entire investment in addressing a problem is 30 seconds of commentary on a youtube video actually is being a misogynist. And simultaneously complaining that she isn't doing anything and never has done anything to advance skepticism is genuinely moronic.

Thanks for mansplaining that PZ. You're wrong of course, because you ignore her attack on stef. But hey, fuck facts, you got a goddamned narrative to fucking push.

Just remember folks, if you disagree with PZ, ever, you're wrong. Isn't life simpler now?

206:

So, I'd like to ask: if most women are telling an individual that approaching them in an elevator/et al would make them less interested in the individual, why is anyone arguing that the individual should approach women in elevators/et al? If the goal is romantic involvement, why is it important to seek romantic involvement in a manner that is less likely to work?

Because it's not "most women"? It's "some women". The difference is important. Now, if you refine it to "women who are fans of PZ, Laden, Jen and Watson" and therfore DRASTICALLY reduce and refine your sample, biasing the hell out of it, then yes, for that set of women, "most" applies.

That assumption that the women who agree with watson and comment as such on blogs are "most women" is simply unprovable. It's the result of a highly biased sample set.

But if you say that, no matter how, you're a misogynist, and wrong.

214:

If the real issue here were really, "How can I talk to ladies and get dates without creeping them out?" then there would be no issue at all. Atheist dudes would just be like, "Gosh thanks Rebecca, for those handy tips! Now I know not to waste my time trying to hit on women in elevators."

Since this is not happening, I am left to conclude that the real issue here is male privilege and a bunch of atheist men who've never had to confront these issues suddenly realizing that they may have to *gasp* change their behavior, unless they really want atheist conferences to continue to be sausage-fests.

you're so very sure that 100% of women agree with you. No proof, but damn, you just know it to be true.

258:

Since a large contingent of men have reacted by being the opposite of chuffed, I am forced to wonder what's really at stake for them. If the ability to ask women for coffee/sex in elevators at 4 am without facing any criticism for it is not about achieving a consensual social and/or sexual interaction, then what is it about?

My recommendation would have been that he ask her to meet him for coffee the next day, 4am is a bit late. But, I can very easily see how he could have been asking just to sit around and shoot the shit without a gob of people around. The "Don't take this the wrong way" could have meant "I know this sounds like I'm trying to get in your pants, but i'm really not"

The idea that he MUST have been hanging on her every word, or even been able to easily hear her at all in that environment, (as someone with a jet-induced hearing loss, it's really easy to not hear a lot of things in that environment even when you are trying to listen) is an assumption that i wouldn't rely on overmuch without better supporting data.

Also, having been in a situation where someone you wanted to talk to was really busy, I can even see why he might have waited the way he did.

If you stop assuming intent, the legitimate possibilities expand rather a lot.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 19, 2011 6:25 PM

Good grief.

Elevator guy was rude and showed a lack of perspective.
Dawkins was rude and showed a lack of perspective.
Rebecca was rude and showed a lack of perspective.
Everyone else except for Stef and Rose were rude and showed a lack of perspective, including me.

The rape threats, unrelated to Elevator Guy, were misogynistic. The word "misogynist" should never be used unless the conduct warrants it. Using it inappropriately nullifies the term and weakens an argument. No one but those making rape threats has been misogynistic.

There is a simple rule. It's the best we can come up with. "No means no." That means one person has to ask the question, and the other person gets to answer. If the no is accepted, that should be the end.

In respect to the elevator, no harassment or objectification occurred on the facts at hand, just a lack of tact.

In respect to Stef, she was called a rape enabler and accused of parroting misogynistic thought, in public, at a time when she couldn't respond. This was unprofessional.

In respect to Dawkins, he has spent his life working for human rights, and didn't deserve the attack he got. But then, he asked for it.

The only sexism I've seen has been by men dismissing female minority points of view as irrelevant and cruelly ganging up on us. Also, men telling other men how to treat women; we can speak for ourselves.

No one should bash others, in argument or otherwise, it isn't effective. Ridicule isn't effective for the exact same reason, and I think we've seen that principle in action here.

Posted by: bluharmony | July 19, 2011 6:40 PM

I am a woman and that can be confirmed through others. I wouldn't mind such a proposition. In fact, on leaving a bar, I'd probably expect it. No, that's not the location I'd choose, and I don't recommend it to anyone, but I wouldn't really care about it, either. I'd forget before I got to my room. It doesn't seem extraordinary or the least bit creepy to me.

But I am aware that many women don't feel this way, and men should consider their feelings if they want to be respectful.

And yes, I've been raped, by someone I know -- when I was very, very drunk.

Disclaimer: everything I say is my opinion. My thoughts are not facts.

Let the bashing begin.

Posted by: bluharmony | July 19, 2011 7:08 PM

@bluharmony

I'm so sorry that happened to you! "That sucks" seems like too weak of a statement, but I'm not sure there is a strong enough one. :(

And I'm going to add an addendum to my last post as I didn't seem to include it, although I meant to: I have in fact seen a chunk of women who say they don't care/wouldn't be bothered. But if the majority of women fall into the categories of "doesn't care" and "creeped out," and very few to none saying "preference for," then utility of nothing else seem indicate that it would be a good idea to choose another location and/or time. Engaging in actions that are likely to either offend your target audience or have no positive effect on your target audience should probably be abandoned in favor of actions that are more likely to please and not offend those you wish to pursue.

Posted by: Lyra | July 19, 2011 7:16 PM

@282/Phil

I don't know. Some people have been saying that it has to do with rape, and I do think that it might have to do with the fact that women associate being alone and enclosed being vulnerable. But I don't know for sure.

However, I also don't think it really matters; I think what matters is that it does make women uncomfortable. When I was in college, a man came up behind me, reached around me, and shoved a tarantula in my face. I was completely unphased; I'm not afraid of tarantulas, and anyway he held it so close to my face that I couldn't see what it was until he removed it. However, even though I was not even a little uncomfortable by what he did, I did think he was kind of an asshole. Why? Because most women would have freaked out. Now, let's say that this guy did this to another girl and she did, in fact, freak out. Would it be fair to say that she needs to be in some kind of concrete, clear cut danger from the tarantula in order to be upset, and that if such danger is absent, then what he did was perfectly fine? Because if that is the case, then she's going to be stuck; tarantula bites aren't deadly to humans, and the spider is more likely to bite the guy holding the tarantula than to bite her. Or would we day, "People have a fear of spiders and you need to respect that, whether or not you think it is reasonable for them to be afraid of spiders."? Because I'm going with the latter. I think that even if there is absolutely no good reason for women to be nervous in elevators with unknown men at 4am in a foreign country, that doesn't mean people should be insensitive if they are.

Posted by: Lyra | July 19, 2011 7:28 PM

Personally, I think "Twatson" is funny as hell. Fuck the tone trolls.

Posted by: 0verlord | July 19, 2011 7:32 PM

They're all discussing this thread at Pharyngula by the way. I just commented defending the last comment I left here as someone called it "ludicrous" (it was a slur against the commenters at Pharyngula apparently).

I'd never commented there before, but I have to say it was an experience. A bit like walking into a pub, seeing an old, drunk guy asleep in the corner, saying "hello" politely to which he yells "fuckcuntbuggershitoffyoustupididiot" and falls back asleep.

It's quaint, but I'm a philosophy student and so it's not for me.

Posted by: Notung | July 19, 2011 7:52 PM

@220:
Lyra, I now bow before you and fully admit and confess my error.
Ladies, and gentlemen, and various invited transgendered species:
Lyra has shut down.

I asked her to find, among other things, one example of someone saying that someone may hit on another under any circumstances. Particular, men on women as is relevant here.

Lyra has found in this whole discussion exactly one person who said as much.
"He has the right to hit on anyone he wants under any circumstances. This is not a violation of women's rights nor is it an attempt to demean anyone. The only way you could think it was is if you view male sexual interest as something inherently evil and harmful."

Now, how this plays into the sexism misogyny thing is baffling to me since the quote says he may hit on anyone with respect to the person's gender. So, if he hits on me in that elevator, he's a fucking misandrist.

Thank you for the research, Lyra. I will file away that in this entire conversation you sleuthed out one, and only one, person who argues that men may hit on men or women anywhere they want under all circumstances without it violating someone's inherent rights UNLESS YOU THINK that in and of itself the act of hitting on someone is evil and harmful. I'm going to hire you onto the Justicar Team of Crack(baby) Private I's.

Lyra@223:
to be frank, the elevator thing isn't a Big Deal, except that whenever we start trying to discuss what happened after it, someone on the other side whips out potential rape / why do you hate women so much that you want them to be raped card. Usually in the same breath that say rape has nothing to do with any of this since Twatson didn't accuse anyone of anything. Like we saw PZ doing here. They want it on the table when it's convenient, and forgotten otherwise. It's difficult to discuss something when that's the level of people opposite one's position.

Just look at the comments since PZ left. Until one of the Pharyngulites showed up, not a single mention of the rape connection. Radfems shows up, "are you saying it wasn't harassment?"

Otherwise, I see it get brought up here largely facetiously: Oh my god! He has coffee! RAPPPPPPPE! Because that's how the other side plays it. Every. Time.

Windy@228:
There's a difference between admitting it very possibly was, and insisting it had to be sexual. He might well have been trying to get in her pants - no one knows. Any assertion beyond "it's possible" is rank speculation on no evidence whatever.

ERV@236:
that's your own fault for not have two faces. I'm afraid you'll never make anywhere in the world being yourself wherever we find you. Silly, girl - watch how the men do it and then just copy that.

I get tired of the "you wouldn't say that to my face" shit. Look, just because you're a coward doesn't mean I am; if you walk up to me and say this to me in real life, there's a sample of my response. Don't like it? Not my problem - I'm a WYSIWYG kinda guy. Err, gay.

"I don't care what you've been called-- in what is supposed to be a rational debate among rational people, there's no excuse for it."
Sorry. You've obviously mistaken this for a different conversation. Rationality went out the window with the "potential rape" trump card that was played. Fuck her. She's being a twat, dick, ass, taint, whatever.

Raging BEE@243:
"Sufficient reasons were repeatedly explained in numerous threads about this EG incident"
Nonsense. If there were sufficient reasons given, I would have changed my mind. Note, emotional blackmail is never a sufficient reason.

Merely claiming you've made an argument doesn't actually make an argument appear. In fact, looking back at what you've said here, you've just made assertions and answered precisely no question head on. You're a hack. And not a particularly good one.

Peter@246:
Actually, putting in that context. I think I might have to switch sides here. I just hate sweaty people. There should be laws. Look out for my "throw away" phrase in an unrelated youtube video about it.

Leslie@250
"So wait...we are excited that an apparently intelligent person gave a bunch of money to something instead of apologizing or discussing the issue?"
Yes, I am glad that an intelligent person wisely spent money to alleviate an *actual* problem that *really* exists. One notes that nowhere along the way did his doing that stop anyone from talking. Your question, and implication, is thus stupid. Try harder.

He stopped participating in the discussion online because 1.) he rarely says much online, 2.) while we're sitting here bitching back and forth over whether he's an evil fucking Dick, he's busy out in the world doing something to reduce the suffering people experience.

Oh, and apparently combating gum-chewers in elevators on the side.

Susan@254:
"Unlike Dawkins, Rebecca doesn't have a whole foundation to donate to such causes."
Unlike Dawkins, Rebecca hasn't contributed a great amount of anything to anything except letting it be known her name is Rebecca Watson. Is Dawkins a better person? I don't know. I've never met her. Is his throughput orders of magnitude superior to hers? Yes. We could lose all of the skepchick people and not miss much of anything. Dawkins single-handedly did more to make events open to all people in one move than Watson has done in her entire life.

Better? No clue. More valuable? Absolutely. There are people who talk. And there are people who get shit done. It's easy to tell which is which. Unlike Dawkins, Rebecca Watson pockets every penny that comes her way from these things. Unlike Dawkins, Watson is a complete and utter hack. Unlike Dawkins, Watson hasn't applied international pressure to get free speech advanced on places like, say, Turkey - an event that raises the floor for every single person there. Unlike Dawkins, if you say her name in public people don't ask "who?".

Sallystrange is distorting reality again.
I can assure you when I ask a woman out to coffee - irrespective of time, place or geometry - it means coffee. But even having no possible sexual interest in a woman, both you and PZ have directed me to Schrodinger's Rapist. Fuck you. I won't be treated as though I'm a potential rapist for asking someone to have a conversation over coffee. Curiously enough, I can't recall ever having been turned down for the asking either. This includes outside of bars in downtown Seattle. I guess our women here are just slightly more adept at understanding other people exist, and that sometimes our women here are treated like adults. Just like everyone else.

Here, let me adjust your parasol so you don't burn in the sun on the way back to the boutique.

John C. Welch@262:
Preach it sister!
If I saw someone had a chip-in widget on, say, her website for helping to fund childcare at our events, I'd have donated.

I have donated to the ACA, NCSE, Richard's Organization, and a few others not relevant here. In light of events of the past year or so, Richard's is the only place I still consider making donations to. He's imperfect and makes missteps here and there. He sometimes does things I really don't like. But at the end of it all, Richard Dawkins has a singularly commendable ability to get shit done.

All without even a trace of whining about how difficult it is, or how he's not being treated fairly. He says, in short, look, I'm going to do this important thing here - with or without you. I'd rather have you with me, but if your underwear is crammed that far up your ass you can't keep up with my 70 year old ass, I'll catch you another time because I have work to do and your crying is only holding me up.

Then guess what happens? Shit gets done. If you think I'm going to let some issue of mine override my support for a man who has unfailingly served this community for longer than I've been alive, you're fucking stupid. We can lose Rebecca Watson and be none the poorer for it. Richard Dawkins will one day be the past. He will die. Right now, Richard Dawkins is the heavy lifter in this community.

Don't like it? Out-compete him. That's a win for everyone.

Raging Bee: John C. Welch may be a blustering idiot. He might blind, deaf and dumb for all I know. Now having said all of that about him, I note that not a single point he has brought up were you able to respond to. If he fits the definition for idiot, I am hard-pressed to see what definition you'd fit. An idiot he might be, but he still manages to recognize the difference between hating women for existing, and thinking a particular woman is a drama-seeking attention whore for its own sake. Sounds like one crafty idiot to me.

Skepcheck:
I appreciate being in the same sentence with those find people, but for their sake, I should be left off that list. I say mean things about people who are saying stupid shit. Occasionally, I stumble over an accidental half-worthwhile point.

Matt@276:
No, it didn't. And that's the point. Despite all of the naysayery about him, and decrying him as a sexist monster lurking to lash out and oppress any helpless damsel he can find, he's remained undisturbed in what he does: getting shit done. Yes, he talks tough and is biting in his language. So is everyone else in this ordeal - he manages to do it without needing to use fuck every sentence and insult people's parentage and upbringing. We all have this feature in common.

What's different? We're talking, and then occasionally doing something. Richard is doing something and occasionally talking. He's a fucking beast of a workhorse. And I have never heard him lodge a single whine about the way he's treated.

And that's the point. He's going to get shit done with or without some henpecking halfwit's approval. And even continue unabated getting shit done when she's actively opposing him.

He Dawk-slapped her and kept on keeping on. And hey, look! Single parents (some of whom are women I'm told) now have ONE LESS obstacle to deal with. These assclowns were able to rally a huge "Dear Dick" response at the speed of gossip for his remarks on PZ's blog. None of them has yet to blog about the a truly great thing that helps out women (and some men too) until it shows up on his website - that gives them distance from him while still being able to support what he did. It's cowardice.

Back to John C. Welch:
That, in a nutshell, is pretty the whole bit.

Carl:
go fuck yourself. This isn't a petty game of internet flame-warring. These matters are actually important. Real people are being hurt right this second because of issues under consideration here. Somewhere in the world this very moment a woman is being held down and raped. And when the rape is over, she has no legal recourse. If she's even more unfortunate by geography, the justice coming her way is to be stoned to death for the capital offense of being held down and raped. There is actual misogyny (which PZ's clan seems to forget means HATRED OF WOMEN, not DISAGREEMENT WITH MY KIND OF FEMINISTS) happening in this world. Right now. There are little girls who will grow up to be dumb women because the sexism in hatred of them in their native lands is such that it's a crime for them to learn to read.

Internet flame-war? No, you fuckwit. One of the reasons some of us are pissed off is that there is a stand-up attention whore crying foul about being asked to coffee and wearing it like she's some kind of fucking victim of something. Meanwhile, in the real world, some young girl's clitoris has just been cut out. If she's a lucky one, she won't bleed to death or die of infection from unclean knives used to mutilate her. And maybe, just maybe if she's really lucky, after being impregnated from a rape, she'll survive the birthing process (complicated by having that particular canal needlessly narrowed, thus increasing trauma, blood loss, infection etc), she'll have the pleasure of taking care of her rapist's child.

Internet flame-war? Not even close, motherfucker.

Posted by: Justicar | July 19, 2011 8:20 PM

@Justicar

Oh, I see. So when you said, I thought when you asked for "a single post" you meant one, but now you're saying "the exact post of all the quotes that I referenced." No, I'm sorry, I'm not going to do that. I found you one of the posts I was referencing. If that's not enough, well, it's not enough. I was looking for another one (which was on Greta Christina's blog, although I'm having difficulty finding it now), but I'm really not interested in playing this game with you.

Posted by: Lyra | July 19, 2011 8:29 PM

@285/Lyra

Umm... I have no idea what you're trying to argue. If someone put a tarantula in my face, with or without warning, someone is getting a punch to the face.

A person with a tarantula (visibly displayed for all to see no less) is an oddity, when they bring it into close proximity to you, it is only reasonable to have concern (big hairy spiders are, as you said, dangerous).

I'll go further: if some person shoves anything in my face, unannounced & unexpected, I'll still give them a beating. That is an act which would be interpreted by almost any standard as hostile. And at the very least, respect my personal bubble. Don't touch me unless I indicate that I want you to.

Having a guy hit on you in an elevator at 4am? After leaving the hotel bar, no less? Unpleasant though it may be, it isn't all that threatening in & of itself. Especially when it was answered with a simple "No", and that was the end of it.

True, the guy could have had a tarantula in his pocket, but we don't know. And since nothing actually happened, I personally think RW overreacted to a situation with many women likely encounter every day.

I'll admit, I'm a guy with confidence in my ability to defend myself. But I don't think that my 'privilege' prevents me from feeling empathy, or the ability to look at this from RW's perspective. It sucks when creepy people hit on you, but it isn't harassment.

Posted by: Phil | July 19, 2011 8:38 PM

Carlie@298,
No. There's a difference between 'afraid to leave their nests' and 'never leave their own blogs', and the set of people who have never commented on ERV is not identical to 'people advocating censorship'.

Posted by: Spartan | July 19, 2011 8:51 PM

@Phil

But big, hairy spiders (tarantulas) aren't dangerous; no tarantula is known to have a bite that is deadly to humans. I have never even heard of anyone being seriously injured by a tarantula. More people undoubtedly die from dog bites than are seriously impacted by tarantula bites. At the absolute worst, I would have gotten a somewhat painful bite, and I wasn't really danger of that (although he might have been). Also, at no point did he touch me. There was no indication that he meant to harm me at all, and I am absolutely sure I was in no danger. I never thought he was threatening me. I'm sure he just thought it would be funny to scare me in a way that ultimately wouldn't hurt me. But that's the point: he did something to me that would have upset most people (including you) even though it wasn't dangerous. And we don't care that it wasn't dangerous. It was still a bad thing to do, a thing so bad that you would have physically assaulted him (I think I just settled on glaring at him).

Ultimately, I don't think what Watson said in her video was an overreaction (although she may have overreacted since; I don't know). All she basically said (in the video) was "That was creepy, I didn't like it, don't it."

Posted by: Lyra | July 19, 2011 8:54 PM

Abbie, I am sad to say I didn't know of your blog before all of this. I wish I had. And I got a answer to a biology vaccine question that was confusing me from one of the commenters on another recent thread of yours. The one about engineering a super-vaccine and how it doesn't work. (I'm not a biologist. I took the required courses, but it never went into anything in depth like that, so my knowledge is whatever one learns in 2 introductory courses). Mostly on those, I read, follow links and read, then get lost in researching some curious something not related to what was originally posted. Meh. So, like everyone who writes an education blog, thanks for sharing your knowledge with the world. Otherwise, I wouldn't have known that particular issue was a.) an issue b.) being mishandled publicly and c.) how it really works.

Lyra:
I asked you for one citation where it's stated that a man is entitled to hit on a woman under any circumstances. Women are a subset of people, granted. But the example you cited was that a man may hit on anyone he wants. That would include other men. How that relates to the topics here (sexism or misogyny) is not immediately obvious. I grant that it at least addresses the hitting on bit, but I fail to see how it shores up any particular point with regards to what we're discussing.

The post literally translates into it's not inherently evil or wrong to hit on anyone. It's not sexist because it would hold true irrespective of whether Watson was male or female. This is not in line with sexism and misogyny, which are two primary topics we're discussing. /shrug

Lyra:
I understand your point that women aren't saying "please, please hit on me in elevators". But there is a non-trivial set of women who are saying it is not an issue at all. Why should those who have an issue with it have expectations which preclude others from being involved in things they're perfectly happy to be involved in? It's terribly Victorian.

Further, "some" women associate being alone with being vulnerable. So do some men. They are entitled to feel that way. That doesn't in turn give them a platform to tell the rest of the world we're constrained by their likes and dislikes, or other emotional issues.

That's the rub of living with other humans: your feelings don't trump everyone else's. Watson's discomfort or even fear for that matter do not burden anyone else to do fuck all about anything with regards to other people. She's fine to say "I was creeped the fuck. out. Ugh. I wish people wouldn't do that TO ME." Speaking in the stead of all women as though she has some right to do so? Fuck her.

Note how Abbie has responded: "I would do ____" She doesn't say "Because of my perspective, all other women should do ____". That's what it means to represent one's thoughts on something. I don't like x. I don't do x. Don't do x to me. These are worlds apart from 'because I don't like x, no one else does either. I don't do x, so you can't either. Don't x to anyone because I don't like it done to me.' Those might *sound* polite, but they are the height of arrogance.

No one has the right to tell me in advance when, where, how and with whom I may have a conversation. Nor does anyone else have the right to deprive me of the possibility of having a conversation with someone I would want to but just didn't know about yet. She is not on my payroll to determine what messages from which people I get to read or hear.

This very simple proposition got me immediately labeled a misogynist, a rape-apologist, sexist, vile, a liar, scum. And those are just the nicer things PZ has said about me. For him to say there's no censorship on his blog because I'm not blocked there is stupid. First I said he blocked me on twitter. Second, not blocking me isn't the limit of inquiry as to whether censorship is happening anymore than not beating one's slaves indicates one isn't oppressing an entire people. I am not the universe of people; it's perfectly conceivable that I'm not censored on something while potentially millions of other people are.

China comes to mind.

Look at bluharmony's post here.
Who is going to tell her that her being raped doesn't count? No one here will. But on PZ's blog, she will be dismissed as a gender-traitor and a threat to women. Her position is perfectly reasonable, and not because I think it's the right disposition either. It's perfectly reasonable because it stops at "for me" and "I think __ about ___ as something for myself."

And I find it repugnant that a woman feels compelled to announce she's been raped just to have the feeling that SHE MIGHT THEREFORE NOT BE IMMEDIATELY DISMISSED AS BEING A GENDER-TRAITOR AND RAPE-APOLOGIST, even though she still will be.

Once Abbie posted up about RD having been sexually assaulted, it was immediately dismissed as not counting because it happened long enough ago. Or that because it was a child and he doesn't understand adult sexual assault. Fuck them. A child was actually sexually assaulted by an authority figure, a child suffered at the hands of an abuse of power disparity. But he can't understand because he's done well for himself EVEN THOUGH he was a victim of sexual abuse?

Remember though, I'm the vile one here. I'm the scumbag and liar. I'm the dishonest scourge of the interwebz.

If my revulsion to dismissing actual victims of real sexual abuse as not being worth hearing without labeling them as a rape-apologist gets me labeled misogynistic and sexist and scum and dishonest, then I'm happy to be all of those things. Belonging to the group of morally upstanding people opposite isn't worth compromising the values I've held my entire life. Just to fit in and be accepted? No. Sorry.

Fuck that. I'd rather be drawn and quartered than to be a morally bankrupt shell of a person.

Posted by: Justicar | July 19, 2011 8:57 PM

Lyra, I have written a parable on exactly the spider issue. It's a short read and explains a bit of what you're addressing.
http://integralmath.blogspot.com/p/radical-spiderism-cautionary-tale.html

In short, our fear of spiders is an artifact of our evolutionary heritage. It was useful for our ancestors to fear creepy crawlies. We can't shake off that emotion that's built into us. But we have another evolutionary heritage to compensate for it: it's called rationality. We can still experience our emotions while simultaneously resisting a natural, base instinct to be afraid by evaluating things in light of what's actually happening.

It's perfectly natural to be shocked and scared by a spider. But you don't turn around and blame the spider for your emotions. You don't turn around and advise spiders to stop being spiders because you don't like spiders. You use your intellect and rational faculties to overcome your base instincts.

And it must be ingrained. Children are almost universally scared of spiders without being told to be. I've yet to see a single child automatically fear an electrical socket, a hot eye on a stove or a gun or knife. We have to teach concern and caution over those latter ones, and then take actions to physically prevent children from being hurt by them because the warnings aren't sufficient.

I've never once had to tell a single one of my children to be wary of a snake or a spider.

Posted by: Justicar | July 19, 2011 9:05 PM

@Oberweiss: Actually, the first time that I really had a go at reading the comments at Pharyngula was in the now-infamous thread that Dawkins posted in. I am somewhat of a newbie when it comes to the Science Blogs comments sections.

Posted by: Mr. DNA | July 19, 2011 9:12 PM

I asked you for one citation where it's stated that a man is entitled to hit on a woman under any circumstances. Women are a subset of people, granted. But the example you cited was that a man may hit on anyone he wants. That would include other men. How that relates to the topics here (sexism or misogyny) is not immediately obvious.

??? Oh, you're just typing for shits and giggles now, right?

Posted by: Carlie | July 19, 2011 9:18 PM

Carlie, the adults are speaking now. Raise your and wait your turn.

Yes, I'm typing for shits and giggles. That's it.

In a conversation about sexism and misogyny, I asked for a single quotation to support it in the form that any man may ask any woman out [as that relates to our discussion about sexism and misogyny - I wasn't aware that I had to end each thought with a reminder of the topics on the table for others to follow along].

She quotes someone who says that anyone can hit on anyone else and unless you're prepared to argue that hitting on other people is inherently sexist or whatever, then there doesn't seem to a problem with it. So, asking for a quotation to shore up the antecedent claim on which we were then discussing, she quote-mines a guy (or gal) and reverses what the person actually says, and tries to shoehorn that as fitting my request.

It was said a man may hit on anyone (male or female). That right there excludes it from the realm of misogyny and sexism. It seems to be on its face a statement of perfect equality.

How that's is relevant in this conversation on sexism and misogyny isn't immediately obvious.

But I'm only writing for shits and giggles; it's not like I'm putting any thought into this or anything. After all, if I started doing that, I wouldn't be on the same footing as many people from pharyngula.

Posted by: Justicar | July 19, 2011 9:28 PM

If the ability to ask women for coffee/sex in elevators at 4 am without facing any criticism for it is not about achieving a consensual social and/or sexual interaction, then what is it about?

Posted by: SallyStrange | July 19, 2011 9:32 PM

Lyra:
A good chunk is coming from men. That leaves another good chunk coming from women. Lots and lots of women are saying they haven't the slightest problem with it. But those women are categorically dismissed. Why? They're just wrong. Why are they wrong? The Right Feminists say so. QED.

Some men, as it happens, do have a problem with it. And have said they'd find it creepy themselves were the subject of the coffee invitation. They rightly stopped at saying that all men feel that way.

Do not confuse the issues. This is about a man *speaking* to a woman. With words. It's not about actions. It's about conversation. So, your whole "conduct yourself" bit isn't relevant. People have a right to tell me in advance there are certain methods of conducting myself that I'm not permitted. Raping people, for instance. Murder. Flashing. Kicking puppies.

But we aren't talking about "conducting" as that entails more than our conversation. We're talking about talking. No one has the right to tell me in advance with whom I may speak, where I may speak to them, on what set of topics, and under what set of circumstances.

Or, if you think otherwise, to whom would you grant the power and right to decide for you, on your own behalf, what you're allowed to say and hear? Who do you trust enough to dictate to you what conversations you may have?

If you under the unfounded assumption that his reason was to get some pussy, then you might have a point. Unlike many in these conversations, I myself am not gifted with psychic powers. I have to constrain myself with non-magical ways of learning and understanding things. There is no evidence that remotely implies he was asking her for sex. He invited her to coffee. Anything you say after that IS ENTIRELY A FABRICATION IN YOUR OWN MIND as it's born out by not a single fact.

Posted by: Justicar | July 19, 2011 9:35 PM

I'm not saying it's wrong for a women to be fine with being hit on in an elevator. I think if she is fine with being hit on in an elevator, that's great. I don't want people to be unhappy. But I think that just because she is fine with it doesn't mean all other women should be or are fine with it, just like I don't think the fact that I was unafraid of the spider being shoved in my face is an indicator of anyone else's fear level.

I see no reason for you to dismiss my conducting example: calling someone a "Negro" is just words, too.

And I already explained the coffee/sex thing in another post. If you want, I can find it and repost it.

Posted by: Lyra | July 19, 2011 9:42 PM

SallyStrange@#315

"If the ability to ask women for coffee/sex in elevators at 4 am without facing any criticism for it is not about achieving a consensual social and/or sexual interaction, then what is it about?"

The elusive joy in creeping out an opportunistically sensitive wannabe?

I'll bet the Germans have a word for it.

Posted by: Prometheus | July 19, 2011 9:43 PM

I ignored your "negro" comment because no one has the right to tell him in advance he can't use that word. Or can't call me a faggot. Or a nigger. Or a kike. Or a cunt.

But the glorious thing about this whole process is that when I see it happen, I get to say what's on my mind too.

Funny how that works? I'm willing to judge people on what they actually do and say instead of what I imagine in my head they might do or say.

It's almost like my response might in someway be constrained by reality and not an imaginary world.

Posted by: Justicar | July 19, 2011 9:45 PM

@Justicar If you are trying to interact with a woman with the intent of having any kind of friendly social interaction with her at all (even a non-romantic one), then her reaction is your issue. I can't fathom how anyone who was really interested in having some kind of friendly interaction with a person could be disinterested in how the interaction was going to impact the person.

And I notice that despite your "we're talking about words, not actions!" statement earlier, you've now switched to actions. Furthermore, a white person who doesn't want a black person to eat in the Restaurant (*sigh*) isn't interested in having some kind of friendly interaction with the black person. A woman who doesn't want a man to hit on her in an elevator has no such baggage. Women who don't want to be hit on in elevators are still perfectly capable of wanting to be friends with men, have sex with men, get married to men, live with men, have male children, interact with male family members, etc etc etc.

Posted by: Lyra | July 19, 2011 9:52 PM

@323/Justicar

But Watson was acting after the fact. She did wait until this had actually been done to say "don't do it." Or are you saying that this should only ever be an individual-to-individual thing? That a black person isn't allowed to say, in a youtube video, "The other day, a white person called me a Negro; white people, please don't call black people Negroes," because he is only allowed to address individuals?

Posted by: Lyra | July 19, 2011 10:00 PM

Rayshul@#322

Of all of the theories regarding EG, I have been toying with the idea of a clever guy who has spent 8 hours listing to some pasty American nitwit describe herself as the skeptic movement's answer to Helen of Troy who is so exhausted by all her admirers that she now "Vants to be alone."

How do you not mess with her?

Ladies and gentlemen RW may have unknowingly met her greatest celebrity....

the legendary Irish Troll King.

Posted by: Prometheus | July 19, 2011 10:02 PM

Furthermore, a white person who doesn't want a black person to eat in the Restaurant (*sigh*) isn't interested in having some kind of friendly interaction with the black person.

-

...actually, you don't know that. My folks have often discussed encountering people signs up on their windows with the traditional "No Niggers, No Irish," who were able to be perfectly friendly to them in circumstances that didn't involve Doing Business With Them. I think the black/white analogy is very appropriate.

Posted by: Rayshul | July 19, 2011 10:08 PM

You know, if we're to the point where saying, "Hitting on women in elevators is likely to make a chunk of women uncomfortable, so you shouldn't do it," it getting equated to saying, "Black people eating in a Restaurant is going to make a chunk of white people uncomfortable, so black people shouldn't do it," I'm done, at least for the night.

Goodnight, all.

Posted by: Lyra | July 19, 2011 10:13 PM

Hi, ERV, et al...

I came to your blog a little over a week ago following various links associated with this craziness.

One point I've only ever seen posted in one other place that completely resonated with me: "Men do this kind of stuff to other men all the time."

I had to think about it because it's so benign, but there's a great deal of truth to that. I was in the Army 12 years and have worked professionally in an office environment that requires me to attend various technical conferences throughout the year. Now that I think on it, I've both been approached by and have approached other men in similar situations to continue a conversation in their room.

Never once had I ever thought or felt it was a proposition in any way. In fact, it always ends up going to their room/coming to my room and...talking.

Sure, sometimes I feign being tired just because I'm fairly introverted and I like my alone time, but I've never done so because I felt hinky about anything.

I think this may be the point of view many men are taking on this issue. WTF is the problem? He just wanted to have coffee and talk? Had he wanted sex, he would have clearly made it more obvious in both speech and mannerisms.

Which, brings me to my second point. It's the Watson crowd that will cry the loudest that they ONLY want men to treat women equally. Approaching men and women equally over coffee and conversation seems pretty equal to me, no?

But, when we approach women on an equal level, the Watson crowd goes ape-shit crazy. 'Cause, we aren't supposed to treat them equally; 'cause their women, and women are scared, and weak.

I'm truly not being disingenuous, here. I see this as a problem.

Posted by: Justin M. Stoddard | July 19, 2011 10:29 PM

I see it as a problem as well. I don't want men to perceive us as having irrational threats, and elevator rape is pretty far out there. We face so many real threats on a daily basis, why on earth would I be concerned about this? And if I did see it as a problem, I'd do something about it, because it's the man's right to be on the elevator, and my irrational fear that's preventing him. I don't consider myself weaker. Why do some feminists have to tell me that I do? It's insulting. I've never seen this problem in law school or anywhere. Women were just treated as equals -- not this paternalistic nonsense.

Posted by: bluharmony | July 19, 2011 10:38 PM

315:

If the ability to ask women for coffee/sex in elevators at 4 am without facing any criticism for it is not about achieving a consensual social and/or sexual interaction, then what is it about?

Well since it involves people interacting with other people, it HAS to be a social interaction. the question isn't IF it's social, but what KIND of social.

So in the interest of getting data, i've been asking the women I know, including my wife about this. (Yes, it is clearly a redonkulously small sample size, and biased. People who talk to me regularly probably aren't all that different from me. dunno about y'all, i avoid talking to people whom obviously dislike me.)

I ask them:

"you're in a scary foreign country, where the natives don't speak english, and have ways and customs far different from our own, like oh, Ireland. (Yes, i think playing the scary foreign country card with IRELAND when you're an AMERICAN is in fact stupid. Sue Me.)

You're at a bar until 4am, talking and having a good time with people. You say "lawdy, it's late, and Ima go to bed" and split. A guy who is kind of on the periphery but not really a part of things follows you into the elevator and says "Hi, don't take this the wrong way, but I think you're very interesting, and was wondering if you'd like to go back to my room for some coffee."

The first comment from all of them is: "Is he Irish?" for two reasons:

1) Ireland is very similar to the US in many ways, but there are little sociological differences in terms of appropriateness.

2) "If he's even vaguely cute and hits me with that accent, fuck the room, I'm jumping his knob right there in the elevator." My wife was also part of this contingent. (I can't disagree, I was turned from a 39-year old man into a ten-year-old with a crush by a stunningly attractive Irish woman working a hotel front desk. She thought it was terribly funny how I kept forgetting minor things. My name. Where my wallet was. Where I was. that kind of thing. That accent is fookin' magical.)

Second question is "Well, if I say no, does he push it or not? If so, creepy. If not, not creepy"

so on and so forth. Basically a lot of "it depends" and "well, if he wasn't giving off a creepy vibe, I'd probably say no, but invite him for coffee in the morning/lunch the next day/coffee in the bar tomorrow night". that last one was my wife, who simply doesn't drink alcohol. Never saw the point in anything that requires "acquiring a taste". ("It tasted like shit the first time I tried it. Why would I drink it until it stopped? Tasting like shit means I don't drink it again. You drinkers are kind of stupid about that. When you find something that tastes good the first time, I'll drink that.")

The point here seems to be: It Depends.

There's no one right answer, no one right viewpoint, not even for women.

Since it's easier to ask her, I refined the question a few times for my wife. If she'd been talking about how she hates getting hit on, ("I don't hate getting hit on if there's some skill involved. Clumsy shit just gets ignored and is mildly annoying. A well-thought out pass is ALWAYS welcome. I won't say yes, but I won't feel bad about it"), and EG encounter happens?

"I don't know. I can't see spending hours bitching about it. I'm a fantasy artist, I make my living sexualizing people in Painter and Photoshop. They mostly have penises, because well, I'm straight and like the penis, but I can't see a problem with that per se. So I can't actually wrap my head around disliking sexualization of people. Without it, I wouldn't get work."

Fair enough and an interesting POV.

"So, does the behavior of men at tech conferences bother you?"

"Hmm...personally, no, but I think the fact I only go to tech conferences with you, and people are somewhat...hesitant to annoy you unless they know you well may affect that. But, I can see that a few days of OMG, A GIRL would get old. But it's the same kind of "that shit gets old" you get after listening to the same song over and over again. It's not BAD, it's just...old."

Her answers, and the answers I got from the other women I know are nuanced. There's no bright shiny true answer here, and that, dear readers is why a lot of this bothers me.

It is NOT about the initial encounter or RW's reaction. People have the right to disagree with her takeaway, but almost no one is saying she's NOT ALLOWED to feel the way she does. (Okay, there may be a few, but they're kind of idiots). It is her behavior AFTERWARDS, and the behavior of others that is pissing me off, and I don't think I'm alone here. I read the initial dawkins comment, and while it was not as well-written as it could have been, I always got the sense it was directed at all the people who are NOT watson doing all the hand-waving about schrodinger's rapist and OMG MISOGYNY.

Dawkins comment, to me, said "Look, a clumsy attempt at social interaction is no more misogyny than someone chewing gum in an elevator is an assault on my sensibilities. At worst, they are minor annoyances. If you want to bitch about misogyny, there are real, serious examples of it, and can we maybe focus on that shit more than someone getting hit on in an elevator in Ireland?"

He was being dismissive of the overreaction on all sides to this thing, at least that was my takeaway.

It is her behavior towards dawkins, her personal attacks, and her dismissal of his disagreement with other people who aren't her that pissed me off, and the rest of her sycophantic lot running around like Limbaughian dittoheads that pissed me off even more.

It is the pushing of THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO VIEW THIS AND IF YOU DISAGREE YOU ARE A MISOGYNIST AND A GENDER TRAITOR that is disgusting to me. It is the reduction of women to helpless infants by Laden and his lot that I find HIGHLY offensive, especially knowing what it takes for a woman OR a man to not be helpless when attacked. Laden's bullshit particularly pisses me off, because it is at best, a dismissal of an entire gender's capabilities, and at worst, ASTOUNDINGLY misogynistic. What is worse? Disagreeing with one woman's interpretation of a clumsy pass, or saying ALL women are SO HELPLESS that the mere presence of a man in a fucking elevator with them, or walking on the same side of the street reduces them all to frightened, trembling, huddled masses?

And yet, I'm clearly missing the point that many women think of themselves that way, because instead of saying "Yeah, greg, appreciate the thought but really, we're kind of not that afraid of, you know, LIFE", they're like "ROCK ON BROTHER, MEN ARE SCARY AND FRIGHTENING AND WE ARE HELPLESS AGAINST THAT!"

You want misogyny? The wildly supported idea that women are, and always shall be helpless against EEEEEEEBUL MENZORZ is far, FAR worse than anything Dawkins, Abbie, Justicar, or I have said.

I'm not always the most sensitive guy, but it never occurs to me to default to treating 60% of the world's population like they are helpless infants just because they were born not crested but cloven.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 19, 2011 11:01 PM

I encourage everyone to check out the thread Mr. DNA is referring to. He got his ass handed to him, quite rationally and logically. You'll also learn a lot, even if he didn't.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | July 19, 2011 11:06 PM

*irrational fears... that was supposed to say, not irrational threats.

Posted by: bluharmony | July 19, 2011 11:11 PM

Not a rusty knife. A rusty, decaying porcupine.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | July 19, 2011 11:17 PM

Lyra:
"But Watson was acting after the fact. She did wait until this had actually been done to say "don't do it."
That's not what she said though. She admonished on behalf of all the women of the world to all of the men of the world to not do that.

"please don't do that *to me*" is perfectly reasonable. "please don't do that to some women who wrongly think they'd be ok with it." Not ok. Especially when there are women telling her to stop talking for them; they don't appreciate it.

But those are the rape-apologist women, the gender traitors, the turncoats. They dare think they have a say in what decisions are made about their lives. Why, what were they thinking when we have a perfectly fine set of women over here prepared to do all their thinking for them. How impolite to decline such a generous offer.

Fuck that.

Posted by: Justicar | July 19, 2011 11:33 PM

SallyStrange@#338

"Sadistic pleasure at having an opportunity to put an uppity bitch in her place. At least that's what it's about for Prometheus."

It is called kidding Sally. I thought your point was well made.

For the record, I don't like Watson because she has no background in the areas she presumes to and actively usurps authority from, to the detriment of women who deserve that authority(merit). If she did she wouldn't use unfalsifiable anecdotes (flapdoodle) to dictate behavior (religion).

I don't know and can't what happened in that elevator. You don't know and can't.

In a skeptic context it is a de facto non-event.

Allow it to be anything other than a non event and Penn Jillette can then run out in the lobby at TAM10 with a story about how a burning bush on the third floor said everybody is in a shitload of trouble.

The whole thing is a successfully engineered social implosion which indicates the skeptical movement she is part of is, res ipsa loquitur, a cult.

Now that is a good basis for a case of the creeps.

A competent feminist skeptic can make the point, as you did, in your post, for what is and is not appropriate behavior, without resorting to a talking snake.

Again I am sorry for pissing you off, I think I already admitted Justicar was better at being funny.

Posted by: Prometheus | July 19, 2011 11:43 PM

Not a rusty knife. A rusty, decaying porcupine.

It used to be a rusty knife. :P (long story)

No but seriously, the reason why we look down upon the use of twat is that it carries some serious gender implications.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | July 20, 2011 12:02 AM

I think we all agree with Sally's last point, it's why we're still talking about this nonevent that's at issue. And the implications of what a lot of us are feeling/thinking are scary. I always said that religion wasn't to blame for the world's problems; it's human nature. And this, along with other secular movements, seems to prove it. Power corrupts, be it secular or religious. Time after time, after time.

The best chance we had was equality, and people want to toss it away, and to right past wrongs by inflicting new ones.

I have women who are too uncomfortable to speak emailing me, asking me if we're supposed to walk around being afraid of rape now. Because, as far as I know, most of us aren't thinking about that, we're living our lives. Of course, those who are being abused need assistance immediately, but instead we're talking about this...Rebecca's invitation to coffee.

Posted by: bluharmony | July 20, 2011 12:12 AM

Publicity. Attention. Twitter followers. Website hits. Money. Dawkins wasn't talking to her, anyway. But yes, the responsible thing to do would have been to address him directly or to write a fair account of what happened. But people always need someone to vilify. In a sense, we're doing the same, we're vilifying her.

Posted by: bluharmony | July 20, 2011 12:19 AM

I've been lurking on this and a few blogs for awhile, but I'm starting to think this all a stealth publicity campaign for RW's new "Skeptifemme" book, come soon to Border's everywhere.

Posted by: T | July 20, 2011 12:28 AM

Anybody else remember Abbie's Talking Head thing, or whatever it was, with PZ a few years ago? I dunno if anybody else cares about post 218, but it breaks my heart. That had to suck, Abbie. I don't envy you having to make that choice.

Posted by: dinkum | July 20, 2011 12:35 AM

@me:
I'm not doing nothing is how that should have read!

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 12:47 AM

I could put my two cents into this whole debacle, but everything that could be said has been said ad nauseum.

Instead, I just want to throw my support behind Abbie. Although I thoroughly enjoy your everyday posts, it's your unique points of view on hot-button issues like this and Pepsigate that make you stand out as someone worth reading. Parrots area a dime a dozen.

Posted by: Jeremy | July 20, 2011 12:53 AM

How can porcupines rust? WHAT IS HAPPENING??!

Posted by: cthellis | July 20, 2011 1:10 AM

The privilege argument is so awesome. Someone disagreeing with you? Privilege! Now you don't have to know or care what they say, you've just dismissed them.

Man, that's some serious privilege, being able to do that.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 20, 2011 1:21 AM

Don't worry about sally or bee. They don't know the meaning of the words logic, reason, and intellectual honesty. They are the kinds of people that will read between the nonexistent lines of your argument to throw straw back at you.

As for PZ, it is really interesting seeing him run in circles trying to defend RD here while not bothering to defend him on his own blog. Perhaps I'm being optimistic, but I think he will eventually come around and see just how fucking nonsensical his horde is and the arguments he is trying to defend. Seriously? He is the arbiter of how to behave on blogs now? "BE NICE YOU GUYS!" Such hypocrisy not to mention the blatant censorship.

As for those arguing about this on his blog, cowards the lot of them.

Posted by: Phyraxus | July 20, 2011 2:16 AM

Are the pharyngulites still over here being tone trolls and complaining about not being polite enough? ROFLMAO. Introspection much lately?

Some are even introducing post hoc rationalisations of why the rudeness on pharyngula is acceptable, but on here it isn't. Are they all really so insular that they don't understand different people have different views on what is considered rude and what isn't? Why do they think their take on it is the be all and end all? They couldn't do a better imitation of religious fundamentalism if they tried.

No said it was. But it's telling that you're willing to violate someone else sense of security.
You're violating my sense of security by posting on teh internetz. STOP POSTING ON TEH INTERNETZ YOU MISANDRIST!!11!!!1!eleventy!

Hey, looky! I can be an ideologue, too! This game is *fun*. And stupid. But mainly fun.

Posted by: Spence | July 20, 2011 4:59 AM

Caine called me a "cupcake"

Creepy

Pharyngula: Where fucking someone sideways with a rusty knife is 'calm, rational discussion', and using the word 'twat' is tantamount to treason.

I think on Pharyngula there should be a warning in the comments before you post: "If you're coming here for a rational discussion, this place is NOT for you. Go away."

It would save real skeptics from wasting their time.

Posted by: Notung | July 20, 2011 6:10 AM

You lot (esp. The Justicar) keep shooting it in the head, but it's not working. Looks like that's not a critical area of its functioning.

Even though, until I spotted it in a sidebar feed on Martin Rundquist's blog, I had no idea who they were, apart from Myers and Dawkins, or that these aristocratic orgies, where something important/unimportant may/may not have happened, were even a tiny part of being an atheist.
Well played kids. Becca the Tar Baby. And bloody Myers and Dawkins, her enthusiastic enablers.

None of this would matter a toss, if it wasn't for the fact that the idiots have noticed, and are laughing and pointing.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/culture/dawkins-is-%E2%80%9Ckaput%E2%80%9D-due-to-a-wee-hours-row-in-an-elevator-at-a-skeptics-convention/
and it's going to spread like knotweed now.

And that means that I'm going to get beclowned-by-association with these infantile numpties and their internecine power plays. In Real Life. My life. What a bag of wank.

So this has got to get sorted, no matter how long it takes.

Am I just going to have to bury the next pair of Witnesses in the garden, when they start sniggering on the doorstep?
And refrain from mentioning atheism in public ever again?

Abbie, are you, Bluharmony, and Stef and Paula by default I suppose, the only Real Men in this bumper edition of a Vicky Pollard sketch?
Nails, y'are, nails.

Posted by: dustbubble | July 20, 2011 6:20 AM

"But now I'm hearing people say things like, "Men have the right to hit on women in any circumstance," "

Do you have any links to that statement, Lyra?

I've seen a lot of "Men have the right to ask women for a date". I've seen a lot of "When are men allowed to ask, then?" but I've never seen ANYONE say men had a RIGHT to hit on women.

Posted by: Wow | July 20, 2011 6:33 AM

"In other words, you picked one that I came pretty darned close to quoting word for word, which I must admit kind of amazes me considering that I was doing it from memory."

OK, and in that context it seemed like it was a response to the demand that women have a RIGHT not to be creeped out by men, ever.

So on the same level of "rights" they are equal, surely: the women has the EXPECTATION to feel secure, but there is no RIGHT to not be creeped out. As so many artists drawing Mohammed said: you don't have the right not to be offended.

But when Muslims/Women insist on the RIGHT "to have their religion respected"/"their feeling of comfort expected", both have been responded to with "and I have the right to draw what I want"/"and I have the right to hit on women".

Posted by: Wow | July 20, 2011 6:44 AM

"If the ability to ask women for coffee/sex in elevators at 4 am without facing any criticism for it "

The criticism got was: "No". That's all that's necessary. There was also "he creeped me out" which is a critisism and also accepted.

However "you cannot hit on women in elevators at 4am" isn't criticism. It's a demand.

Posted by: Wow | July 20, 2011 7:12 AM

I've just spent the past two hours in the comments section at Pharungula, talking about the word "twat".

You SO were not talking to that pit of PCP'd-out baboons. You may have been ducking feces and baboon semen, while trying to be heard over the screeching, but that's not talkin.

Kind of masochistic actually.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 20, 2011 10:10 AM

The people who are calling the author out for saying "Twatson" are themselves guilty of ad hominem, and are fucking idiots; here is why. Ad hominem is attacking the person INSTEAD of the argument, which is exactly what you dumbfucks are doing; "OMG U GUIZE SHE SAID A BAD WORD SHE IS SO IMMATURE" Calling someone Twatson, dumbfuck, shithead, cockface, is not ad hom UNLESS it is used instead of an argument or to say "Don't listen to them, they're a shithead!"

Posted by: Danny Wuvs Kittens | July 20, 2011 10:52 AM

Yeah Ken, how weird that Abbie doesn't choose to make anyone but herself responsible for her own safety. How stupid of her to have a different opinion about getting chatted up in an elevator.

Clearly, she should take PZ's example, and be all sweetness and light in person, while telling people to fuck themselves with a rusty knife/porcupine on her blog.

That's SO much better.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 20, 2011 11:19 AM

@384 Danny
Calling Rebecca 'Twatson' isn't an ad hominen; it's someone's assessment of her character. Rebecca abused her position as a speaker to embarrass Stef. Is that twattish behaviour? Well, if the tampon fits...

Posted by: frank habets | July 20, 2011 11:37 AM

Stoooopid lurker question: If a boy preferences his propositions to me in the future with, "Don't take this the wrong way, but....," should I always default the rest of his proposition in my head to, "this boy wants to have sex with me?"

Posted by: EP | July 20, 2011 12:29 PM

385:

Technically, I think Justicar started "twatson". So he should get the primary credit for it. I just think she's an overhyped stupid bint who's too cheap for proper hair care.

(yes, it's important. I don't fucking care how much it costs, I will give up FOOD before I give up my quarterly Green Peridot visits for a de-graying of the beard and sideburns and trim. (salt and pepper at 44 is okay. Full-on total gray is not, and yes, I am in fact vain about it. Best $70 I spend.)

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 20, 2011 12:58 PM

I hate to correct John C. Welch (but since he's an idiot as I learned yesterday, I must):
"You SO were not talking to that pit of PCP'd-out baboons. You may have been ducking feces and baboon semen, while trying to be heard over the screeching, but that's not talkin.

Kind of masochistic actually."

Misogynistic, not masochistic. Gosh, sir, work on your victimology.

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 1:22 PM

395:

Dude, if you voluntarily go over to Pharyngula and disagree with the Minnesota Doughboy, you're totally fucking maso.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 20, 2011 1:28 PM

Raging Bee @396:

Did you really mean to imply that how we treat PZ limits his ability in how he treats others? What other powers of PZ do you confess we ultimately control? I like composite functions. This one must be solved. =^_^=

Yes, Dawkins is the George W. Bush of the atheist communicators. You nailed that one the head.

*points and laughs at you*

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 1:40 PM

You SO were not talking to that pit of PCP'd-out baboons. You may have been ducking feces and baboon semen, while trying to be heard over the screeching, but that's not talkin. Kind of masochistic actually.

A minority of the posters there did actually try to talk to me in a civilised manner, although it wasn't long before the "are you really that fucking dense?" and "just fuck off" comments popped up. You're really not allowed to have an opinion which differs from that of the regulars over there, and if you do you're quickly dismissed as a "misogynist" and a "cupcake". I thought I did fairly well to remain calm whilst the insults were being thrown.

(yes, it's important. I don't fucking care how much it costs, I will give up FOOD before I give up my quarterly Green Peridot visits for a de-graying of the beard and sideburns and trim. (salt and pepper at 44 is okay. Full-on total gray is not, and yes, I am in fact vain about it. Best $70 I spend.)

When I was at school, one of my friends decided to experiment with his mother's hair dye. He was a touch hesitant at first, but I managed to convince him that it would look awesome. So he snagged some of his Mum's Clairol and we went to work. It said "warm brown" on the box, but we must not have done it right because his jet-black hair ended up a sort of weird, purpley-copper colour. It was absolutely disgusting, and he got properly ripped on in school for about two weeks afterwards. It was brillant. Whenever I see Rebecca Watson with her mental-looking, damaged purple hair it always reminds me of that incident.

Posted by: Mr. DNA | July 20, 2011 1:52 PM

The whole anti-Rebecca backlash flared up big time before Dawkins commented. It started when she attacked Step from the podium, where Stef was in no position to reply.

But that's not what Dawkins was talking about. Nor does it change the fact that it was Dawkins' words that brought so much attention to the matter.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 20, 2011 2:05 PM

I'd love to see Abbie interviewed on "Point of Inquiry" as a counterpoint to the Rebecca Watson interview on the last ep. Of course, that's unlikely to happen with Mooney, at least. Either that, or a bloggingheads chat between Rebecca and Abbie would be cool.

Posted by: Strider | July 20, 2011 2:12 PM

What a complete and utter clusterfuck! I seriously doubt that this one will ever be settled. There are 10 different entry points into this mess and consequently a thousand different ways to either look or actually be disingenuous.

PZ uses technical constraints to excuse his thread killing. Four words, 'Part Two' and 'Endless Thread'. Just closing a thread is one thing, closing it with inflammatory jibes is another.

The one thing that stands out for me is the way that PZ has Caine and co's backs, regardless of the pseudoscientific black-and-white thinking they use to fit opponents to a template and then dismiss them. Privilege, for instance, can be a bit of a nebuluous concept and very subjective. In any given circumstance you can calculate privilege using a whole range of dynamics and assumptions about magnitude of privilege based on broad criteria like gender are just that, assumptions. Picking just one, for instance strength, because it suits your argument is dishonest. Besides, it's only a privilege in a fight and in this instance there was no fight. You can't even say there was any implied threat of physical violence. How about if you pick confidence, or emotional state? Maybe in actuality RW had the privilege. Who the fuck knows. But no, if you don't recognise that you are in fact a privileged, anti-woman bigot compromised by the all-encompassing tentacles of the Patriarchy, you are a very, very NAUGHTY LITTLE BOY who feels entitled to unfettered access to womens' bodies. If you insult RW it has to be because she's an UPPITY WOMAN, not because you don't think her a suitable public representative of skepticism. Doesn't seem to occur to these knuckleheads that the real reason you are so fucking steamed at being labeled a misogynist is that real misogyny is offensive to you. You can usually pick them out by the 'ironic' username like 'Florence, Shrinking Violet of Mass Destruction'.

Posted by: ThreeFlangedJavis | July 20, 2011 2:19 PM

The whole spider thing seems odd to me.... I am not afraid of spiders, but I am hyper aware of how many men around me could overpower me easily. I am aware that I am the last defense of my physical person and there are dangers - personal, social, and health - to sex which I will bear alone. Women are aware of this all the time. It comes up in what we wear, who we talk to, where we go, and when we go. Our mothers and boyfriends worry if we are out too late, not because there are people with spiders in their pockets, but because of real danger. I live with this danger all the time, and I want the men in my life to be aware that the women they want to speak to may live with that too. Elevator guy acted in a way that did not take this into account, and a blogger politely mentioned it. Being aware of that gives you a better chance to get laid. Respecting it makes you a better person.

Posted by: Leslie | July 20, 2011 2:33 PM

ERV replied to PZ,
"Did you stop to think for half of a fucking second that maybe, just maybe, *I* had ACTUALLY been in a situation where I could have been raped ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS and *I* thought Watson (or anyone) comparing her absolutely BENIGN encounter on the same level as the HELL I went though"

Sadly, you lowered yourself to their level here by implicitly agreeing with them that a female's emotional experiences trump all logic. Your "argument" is that PZ should shut the fuck up (he's only a man after all) because you have a personal emotional experience and a vagina.

That's exactly the logic that their side uses.

Yes I realise it's a great slap in his face because you're using his own bigoted "logic" against him to shut him up but the danger is you end up promoting / endorsing that which you oppose,

(1) if you are really for equality you don't need to shut them up -- its them who tries to win by censorship; our side doesn't need to. We have truth.

(2) you have facts and reason on your side, so why would you grab up this other tool of emotional (and sexist) blackmail?

BTW the answer to the strict question asked is that by opposing feminism you cease to be a woman as far as the feminists are concerned and therefore your emotional anecdotes don't count -- just as any emotions of men never count. You become a non-woman.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 2:46 PM

"Apparently before Twatson fell down and threw a temper tantrum and demanded everyone kiss her invisible boo-boo."

Twatson.

You are rude, and classless. Don't pretend to be an intellectual until you apologize (publicly) to Rebecca Watson for this childish insult.

Posted by: Steve Thoms | July 20, 2011 2:51 PM

I'm a girl and called her "twatson."

Yeah. You're, what, 12? So you have an excuse for being an ignorant immature tone-deaf jerk.
Abbie's a woman, not a girl--I can tell because she's fond of posting pics of herself--and should know better.

Posted by: ChasCPeterson | July 20, 2011 3:09 PM

Honestly I had just assumed PZ censors messages criticising his feminism over at his blog because all feminists do. Still I just attempted to post a test comment there and I didn't seem to be banned by IP so (for a feminist) that's good.

I say "for a feminist" because he's obviously ridiculously bad for a skeptic. A skeptic welcomes (even demands) a fair hearing from alternative and critical view points. A skeptic doesn't attack critics, try to dismiss them, drive them off, or personally insult them. Of course don't forget the next step - a skeptic then considers the arguments and seeks to refute them honestly.

But for a feminist since PZ doesn't (yet) have me banned by IP, I would say he's doing well.

I note we have to have the conversation over PZ's censorship off his blog.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 3:09 PM

@415: Should I grab some sticks and stones? 'Cuz you seemed to have missed the distinction of semantics.

Posted by: EP | July 20, 2011 3:21 PM

"Being aware of that gives you a better chance to get laid."

No, please don't. Don't make me say, "WOW, sexist much?"

Because men wouldn't bother listening to women otherwise, right?

It's this kind of shit that hurts the cause of these "feminists." Why would we bother listening to what you have to say if you are already so ready to stereotype and be sexist? Something that these "feminists" proclaim to be against.

Posted by: Phyraxus | July 20, 2011 3:30 PM

"I don't see anyone here saying RW is hysterical for simply saying she felt uncomfortable."

Very few people (I am one) even think she was wrong (ie sexist) to make that statement. I think its sexist of her for the same reason I would oppose her if she had said disabled people or gay people make her feel icky.

I would not call her message hysterical. Hysterical? No. Sexist? yes. Even so I wouldn't make a big deal of it. It's the sort of sexism that is so common against men that it is the air we breath. Sometimes it is worth pointing out such sexism. Most of the time there's far worse sexism (against men) going on to be bothered with the little stuff.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 3:33 PM

Well, I think the RD Foundation has had ample time to explain themselves here and has failed to do so, so I'd like to reproduce what they posted on Jen's blog to clear things up here:

I'd like to set the record straight. Dr. Andy Thomson and I (Elisabeth Cornwell) gave a talk at the AA conference in DEs Moines, IA about religion and women and why, despite religious oppression, women were more likely to be religious than men. We specifically pointed out the social support issues and that religious organizations were far better than atheists organizations in providing women with family support. We are well aware of the issues. Many, nearly ALL of the Q&A; noted the need of child care facilities for young children During conferences (Camp Quest has done an EXCELLENT job at providing care for older children), RDFRS wants to expand it to include younger children.

RDFRS has routinely supported other secular, humanist, and atheist organizations since it's inception. It is discouraging, given the efforts RDFRS has made to support this movement to suddenly suggest that our motivations are less than sincere.

It has been a privilege to work with so many incredible people through RDFRS, and look forward to continuing efforts to rid the world of the intolerance and ignorance promoted by religion.

Sincerely,
R.. Elisabeth Cornwell
Executive Director
The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

Please note the bolded part (my doing). So, according to the RD Foundation, this much needed and sure to be welcomed commitment to childcare by the RDF for some atheist conferences has nothing to do with the things Richard Dawkins said to and about Rebecca Watson or how he feels about Rebecca Watson.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | July 20, 2011 3:36 PM

@424: Situational awareness, too.

Posted by: EP | July 20, 2011 3:39 PM

Ok! I'm back and I just wanted to say that I finally had a break-through. I'm slower than many people, particularly on emotional affairs.

But there's something that's been grating my nerves from the word go here. Well, from the words "don't do that". PZ has done it. All the misandrists on his site have done it. And it's spilled over to here, and cluttered up my inbox, and now it's following on me on youtube. But I finally figured out what is bothering me about it.
The following message holds the key:
"She never told anybody what to do or think. Saying "don't do that" is not some order from on high. It's a suggestion. But if we want more women to attend atheist conventions it is best to discourage creepy behaviour. She was not merely invited for coffee. She was followed onto an elevator so that he could invite her to his room at 4 am after she had publicly stated she was tired. This is creepy behaviour."

If you can't figure it out, go read my blog post about it. =p

Aratina Cage:
no one here has been questioning RD's motivation for doing this. But Jen has said she doesn't want to speculate.

Abbie recognized speculation isn't necessary. John C. Welch figured out it wasn't necessary. I figured it out. Many people figured it out.

This was planned before Twatson (I suppose I will take credit for that one!) happened. Twatson happening didn't stop him from doing what he does: getting shit done.

Only some of the people on your side of this issue have felt it necessary to imply anything about it at all. Surprised I am not.

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 3:50 PM

-Phyraxus

Good point, that comment could be construed as sexist. I apologize. I wanted only to highlight that men may not be aware that women are highly sensitive to situations that could be even potentially dangerous. In addition, there is a suggestion in this thread that men can never hit on women. I do not think that is true, but situation awareness is key. I would also assume the end result of hitting on them is sex. I was trying to address those comments, but I should have been more specific.

Posted by: Leslie | July 20, 2011 3:55 PM

bluharmony,
"I see it as a problem as well. I don't want men to perceive us as having irrational threats, and elevator rape is pretty far out there. We face so many real threats on a daily basis"

No. You. Don't.

This is an example feminist hysteria and sexism. Sure, it's not as ridiculously obvious as the all men are rapists stuff, but still. Women are the safest demographic. That's especially true in public places, meeting strangers. Whenever you say this rubbish you just label yourselves as fearful children that big strong men have to protect (while also avoiding because fearful child women might think they are rapists).

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 4:03 PM

Wow, Byron, you're even dumber now than you were on Stand Down.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 20, 2011 4:08 PM

Raging Bee,
"You really thnk it's "sexist" for a woman to judge a man by his specific behavior toward her?"

The comments by other feminist, later endorsed by RW, were to the effect that it was not any specific behaviour but the mere fact of being male which was the crime here. The problem they identified was that any man might be a rapist, simply by virtue of being born male. ie they gender profiled.

Bee again,
"Examples, please? [of feminist sites that censor]"

What part of the word "all" did you not understand? Name me some sites and I bet they already have me banned. The NOW web site was taken down because they didn't want to explicitly ban me per se - so maybe that one was an exception. That was back when Grendee was vice pres. One other did the same thing.

Obviously I have not attempted to post on ever feminist web site. Nor have I seen every blade of grass yet I feel confident in saying the remainder are green.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 4:09 PM

Aratina Cage@#434

"ERV portrays this as a counter move to the uproar over his comments at Pharyngula, but it was not such a move. That's why I thought it ought to be said here, too."

I agree with you. ERV totally dropped the ball on this one.

Dawkins has demonstrated himself to be a person of sufficient moral fiber that he need not prove his detractors to be empty self serving opportunistic bullshit artists.

They take care of that, in time, by mere comparison.

Or was that not the point you, Jen McCreight and assorted empty self serving opportunistic bullshit artists were trying to make?

Just trying to help.

I'm a helper.

Posted by: Prometheus | July 20, 2011 4:15 PM

The problem they identified was that any man might be a rapist, simply by virtue of being born male. ie they gender profiled.

This has already been discussed at length, and you're just another petulant latecomer who hasn't kept up. They were merely being cautious of men in specific situations where sexual assault is known to be more likely. If you can't understand that simple concept, and fail to take time to read the explanations of others, it's no wonder so many blogs banned you. Who the hell wants to hear you making the same accusations over and over and ignoring the responses?

What part of the word "all" did you not understand?

What part of "I need examples to back up your wild accusations, otherwise I can't take them seriously" did you not understand?

The NOW web site was taken down because they didn't want to explicitly ban me per se...

The NOW took down a Web site because they didn't want to ban you? Dude, you're so self-inflating it's downright funny. You actually think that statement even sounds plausible?

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 20, 2011 4:24 PM

Seriously, you guys, don't feed the troll known as ragingbee.

"Once again, the special-ed branch of the Men's Movement rears its petulant head."

Seriously, he thinks special-ed is an insult. I hope I don't have to explain why that is bad...

Posted by: Phyraxus | July 20, 2011 4:30 PM

Look, cupcake is my nickname. Stop giving it out to other people. It creeps me out.

*sipscoffee*

You don't understand how it's a warrior's response? Abbie had it right "lol".

Yes, I suppose you don't understand. Instead of sitting around and bickering in the comments section on blogs, Dawkins has shit to do. So, he kept on doing shit. Out of all the shit he gets up to, one thing was planning out the logistics of the daycare bit. By sheer fortunate timing, it happened to have dropped WHILE Twatson, PZ and some of the other ladies were decrying him as a sexist, woman-hating relic who deserved to be run out of town so they could take over and show him how it's really done.

Fine, they're free to do that. In the meantime, Dawkins is busy doing shit while they're busy bitching about not being treated in the same way as the dude who's doing the power-lifting they complained no one has done. If they *did* something a quarter as often as they bitched about something not being done, you know, something might *actually* get done.

But don't worry. Dawkins is busy doing that so they can continue sitting around bitching about the world.

Yeah, Dawkins should get a fucking bumper sticker that reads, "Twatson, how taste my peepee?"

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 4:34 PM

Tabby Lavalamp (awesome name incidentally):
there is an edit function. It's called preview.

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 4:38 PM

Raging Bee,
"They were merely being cautious of men in specific situations where sexual assault is known to be more likely."

Rape is known to be less likely in an elevator. But even if it were in a situation where it was more likely, it would still be gender profiling and a sex stereotyping of all men as "potential rapists".

Raging Bee,
"The NOW took down a Web site because they didn't want to ban you? Dude, you're so self-inflating it's downright funny. You actually think that statement even sounds plausible?"

I don't see how that makes me look better or worse. Believe it or don't. You asked for an example and I gave you one. To elaborate:

Kim Grandee was the VP and she had a thing at the time for expanding their internet presence or something. Their comments forum was a mess of fighting so I guess she decided to take it down (she said that was the reason explicitly though she didn't name me by name and others were involved I was probably her highest issue). They reworked their web site and placed the forum beyond a pay screen or membership screen. I think she then became president of NOW or something. We all moved to the Ms boards. Feminsits and non. They reacted by changing their board rules to a formula closely followed by most feminist boards in later decades, namely they said critics of feminism were not welcome to post.

You seem unaware of the history of your own movement. Many are.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 4:46 PM

@John C. Welch

I see it as less making the RDF out to score points, and more like "So while all these people were setting up their little virtual lynch mobs, RD ignored them and did his thing. In this case, it happens to be something made of pure coincidental win, and showed the difference between slactivism and activism"

I agree that was a valid possible reading, but it wasn't clear enough given the way the post ends. Now that the RDF has spoken, that is all that is left.

I guess it is a little ironic, but I'm completely used to this phenomenon since I often complain bitterly about the way I and my fellow LGBTs are treated in the USA and then watch as the oppressors gallantly extend us partial rights and freedoms little by little and make a big ado about it and then expect our support which we have little choice but to ultimately give. I've had to eat my words about President Obama several times already, but we are still nowhere near where I can feel safe and sound about my life in the USA at this point. I suppose that is life for humans where a few people hoard most of the money, fame, and power (and that doesn't mean they didn't earn it by being good at something popular or profitable) which they get to use to influence things however they see fit.

Having said that, I would not doubt for a second that Dr. Dawkins, if only for a fleeting second, enjoyed just a LITTLE schadenfreude as he made his announcement. $DEITY knows he certainly earned it.

Hmm, personally I doubt it unless I hear that from him. Dawkins doesn't seem to me to be the kind of person who enjoys schadenfreude much.

@Prometheus

Or was that not the point you, Jen McCreight and assorted empty self serving opportunistic bullshit artists were trying to make?

Jen McCreight is not such a thing, not at all. Why would you ever think that about her? For fuck's sake!

Posted by: Aratina Cage | July 20, 2011 4:47 PM

Ms Magazine boards that is.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 4:48 PM

I guess it is a little ironic, but I'm completely used to this phenomenon since I often complain bitterly about the way I and my fellow LGBTs are treated in the USA and then watch as the oppressors gallantly extend us partial rights and freedoms little by little and make a big ado about it and then expect our support which we have little choice but to ultimately give.

Dawkins and the RDF are 'the oppressor' now? *facepalm*

Posted by: windy | July 20, 2011 4:55 PM

It really is amazing how "feminists" fall into the same logical fallacies that are used against us by creationists.

Tone trolling, "OMG TWATSON!!"
Emotional Appeals, "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!" (Women being the children in this case.)
That shit isn't that bad so STFU, "CIRCUMCISION AIN'T SHIT BECAUSE FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION HAS THE WORD "MUTILATION" IN IT!"
Complete disregard for another persons point of view, "MEN AREN'T VICTIMS OF SEXISM!!" (Indeed, I had an argument where one went so far to say that women being suspicious of men is completely justified regardless of circumstance. Also, blacks being suspicious of whites isn't racism by the same logic [the "feminist" said this]. Racism and sexism only occurs when a white male does it.)
Complete disregard for another persons emotions, "WE ARE CALLING YOU A RAVING MISOGYNIST ASSHOLE FOR DISAGREEING WITH US BUT YOU NEED TO FEEL EMPATHY FOR US!!" (Seriously... on PZ's blog... nuff said...)

Shit, I wish I were so privileged to not bother with reason or logic when putting forth an argument as these "feminists" do. AWW I fucked up, privilege is only something rich, heterosexual, white males have. I'm not white! Nor rich! Does that count?! Am I only half privileged now?! Is there such a thing?!

Posted by: Phyraxus | July 20, 2011 4:58 PM

Spartan, you said,

"And what is your opinion of the insult 'gender traitor'? It's far more rude and classless than 'Twat'-anything. Have you demanded that Watson apologize and also not pretend to be an intellectual?"

I'll not be draw into a game declaring which terms/insults are more degrading/damaging to the discourse then which. Curious that you'd ask me my opinion of the severity of 'gender traitor' and then promptly declare your opinions on the issue, and that I must act on them.

But since you asked, Rebecca Watson did not call anyone a gender traitor. As near as I can tell, not even once.

If you can provide evidence otherwise, I'd be more then happy to review it.

Posted by: Steve Thoms | July 20, 2011 4:58 PM

Their comments forum was a mess of fighting so I guess she decided to take it down (she said that was the reason explicitly though she didn't name me by name and others were involved I was probably her highest issue).

Right...the comments were a mess, but you're still certain you were the biggest threat, and you were the one who made the feminazis panic and shut down their forums. What a self-important twit. As if the nonsense you've posted here is unique in the annals of anti-feminist rhetoric.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 20, 2011 5:02 PM

Leslie #409 The whole spider thing seems odd to me.... I am not afraid of spiders, but I am hyper aware of how many men around me could overpower me easily. I am aware that I am the last defense of my physical person and there are dangers - personal, social, and health - to sex which I will bear alone. Women are aware of this all the time. It comes up in what we wear, who we talk to, where we go, and when we go.

You assert that women in general live in the permanent state of anxiety and paranoia. This is a rather extraordinary claim, can you provide evidence for that? There are numerous women here saying that this does not apply to them. That's lots of conflicting personal anecdotes, and little useful evidence.

Our mothers and boyfriends worry if we are out too late, not because there are people with spiders in their pockets, but because of real danger. I live with this danger all the time, and I want the men in my life to be aware that the women they want to speak to may live with that too.

Where I live they are more concerned about friends female or male getting killed while drunk driving from a club.

In any case no amount of awareness by the "men in your life" will change anything. You have indicated above that all men, inside and outside elevators are evaluated by you first on whether they could assault you.

Elevator guy acted in a way that did not take this into account, and a blogger politely mentioned it. Being aware of that gives you a better chance to get laid.

RW said that EG was "sexualizing" her. RW introduced EG as having missed the point of her talk, which was about sexism and misogyny in the atheist community. The implication is that EG's actions are an example of sexism and misogny. RW was issuing rules to define what behavior is sexist and thus anti-social, not what is best for getting laid.

Respecting it makes you a better person.

When people lecture others what they must do to become a "better person" that makes me cringe. Please stop doing that, it will make you a better person.

Posted by: Michael | July 20, 2011 5:08 PM

@windy

Dawkins and the RDF are 'the oppressor' now? *facepalm*

Dawkins himself or the RDF itself, no. I was thinking bigger, in terms of classes that Dawkins falls into, when I wrote that. And to clarify, I said nothing and meant nothing about the RD Foundation there.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | July 20, 2011 5:10 PM

Tabby@258

Ive noticed that the scienceblogs html parser tends to end a blockquote on a carriage return. It seems not entirely consistent, but it is common enough. At this point, if Im quoting multiple paragraphs, I take the precaution of replacing the carriage returns with BR tags. Dunno if that was your problem or not, but thought Id mention it.

Posted by: Dave | July 20, 2011 5:15 PM

"So, I have money to buy a pizza instead of Ramen, and lost a friend. Awesome."

That's really just the kind of "community" we're part of. No one is your "friend" forever. That's why I've largely stopped participating.

Posted by: TylerD | July 20, 2011 5:20 PM

In regards Aratina Cage saying, "I guess it is a little ironic, but I'm completely used to this phenomenon since I often complain bitterly about the way I and my fellow LGBTs are treated in the USA"

Do not fucking include me in your goddamned pity party. Go play the victim for yourself and leave me out of it.

Things are not perfect in the States. The gay rights movement of which I am a part, instead of being a bitter whiner online, has enjoyed a rate of progress unknown to blacks and to women when they were struggling for equality. I am perfectly happy to see the rate at which we're making progress. Go whine all you want, but those of us who can step outside of our own provincial concerns and evaluate things on a scale can see that in the span of time less than a full generation the progress has been tremendous.

Thus, I decline to be grouped in with people whose recourse is complain that things are Goldilocks yet.

And how does this at all relate to Richard Dawkins? Is he the evil state oppressing people or something?

Pull your head out of your ass, take your heart off your sleeve and use your fucking reasoning faculties to evaluate things. Social progress is not a snap your fucking fingers and it's solved. It takes time. A lot of time. And a lot of pain, which the gay movement has had to experience a lot, lot less of. Cry in your own beer, leave me out of it.

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 5:38 PM

Aratina,

You seemed to suggest that it was deliberately timed to roll out as a response to people who are displeased with how he behaved on Pharyngula, that's how.

That isn't how I read the post at all. My interpretation (and mine may be different again from Abbie's) was not that this roll out was anything to do with ElevatorGate.

I think the surprise was that after weighing in on a contentious topic, Dawkins went quiet. No defending his position, no smoothing ruffled feathers, no apology.

The suggestion is not that the childcare thing was a calculated act. It was more that Dawkins had no need to smooth ruffled feathers, because his actions would always speak louder than everybody else's words.

I think Abbie's other point was that in this respect, Dawkins probably acted in a classier way than she would have done (or me, or any of us, for that matter) and gave him respect for that.

Unfortunately many have read other things into this post, which has often been quite unfair on Abbie. That's teh internetz for you, sadly.

**Disclaimer: these are my interpretations of this post, which may differ from what was actually intended**

Posted by: Spence | July 20, 2011 5:47 PM

Thank you, Dave @471, that appears to be exactly what happened.

But now onto (sigh) DavidByron.

The point is that feminist sites quickly realised they needed to exclude critics from making comments or they would not survive. This is the same conclusion that other hate web sites such as the white supremacist ones came to.

You are making a conservative argument. I am a liberal. I believe in equality. I agree that what you are saying here makes sense from your anti-equality view point. Do you understand WHY profiling is wrong to begin with?
I bet you do not, because you are really a conservative pretending to be a liberal (like Obama). Please explain to me why profiling is wrong. Just humour me here. If you are really a liberal it should be easy enough.

aging Bee you are making two contradictory arguments in response to my accusation that feminists always censor. This self-contradiction is typical of feminists because they are irrational (when on topic).

As we've seen, by your own words you are not a skeptic.

A skeptic doesn't attack critics, try to dismiss them, drive them off, or personally insult them. Of course don't forget the next step - a skeptic then considers the arguments and seeks to refute them honestly.

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | July 20, 2011 5:49 PM

@Spence

I think Abbie's other point was that in this respect, Dawkins probably acted in a classier way than she would have done (or me, or any of us, for that matter) and gave him respect for that.

Ah, OK. That had not come to my mind, but it does make sense when taken that way.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | July 20, 2011 5:54 PM

@Tabby Lavalamp:
I'm not ignoring you but I didn't see anything worth replying to in what you said. Your use of "No True Scotsman" was inappropriate, your accusation of hypocrisy invalid.

I do want to recognise that you made a good effort to contribute though. But I am just not interested in responding to personal attacks. If you want to hate me I just don't care. If you respond to the argument then I'd be interested in that.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 6:09 PM

Aratina, thanks for the courteous reply. It is heartening to know that it is still possible to have a reasonable and thoughtful discussion in what has become a very heated debate. Sincerely, thank you for that.

Posted by: Spence | July 20, 2011 6:15 PM

*Rainbow*

Rainbow.

Posted by: windy | July 20, 2011 6:23 PM

In reply to Thoms at post #463.

I seem to recall there have been some links and/or quotes with Watson specifically using the term "gender traitor" in regards to Stef McGraw, but I have been unable to trace them. Perhaps it was just the Phlaming Pharyngulites™ that used that term, or perhaps some of the other Skepchick aplogists.

However, following the Watson quote below is a link to Watson's post wherein she quite clearly, specifically, and directly associated McGraw, and McGraw's comments, with rape apologists, mysogynists, and other forms of anti-feminists. OK, OK, so she didn't specifically say McGraw was a "gender traitor" -- phew. Rather, McGraw is a rape apologist, a mysoginist, and an anti-feminst. Well, gosh, that's OK then. No harm done. Nothing nasty there. Thank the FSM she didn't say gender traitor! Luck luckity luck luck lucky!

Watson said:

"... but when ancient anti-woman rhetoric like the above is repeated verbatim by a young woman online, it validates that misogyny in a way that goes above and beyond the validation those men get from one another. It also negatively affects the women who are nervous about being in similar situations. Some of them have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted, and some just don’t want to be put in that position. And they read these posts and watch these videos and they think, “If something were to happen to me and these women won’t stand up for me, who will?”

Link: (http://skepchick.org/2011/06/on-naming-names-at-the-cfi-student-leadership-conference/).

Also, Thoms, your demand for an apology for the minorly insulting sobriquet of "Twatson" is nothing short of laughable. When did you become such a chickenshit apologist for all things Watson and/or all things Skepchick? Are you PZ Myers in pink or something?

Note to ERV: I too cannot get the blockquote HTML to work properly. It keeps double quoting me.

Posted by: John Greg | July 20, 2011 6:40 PM

@Phyraxus,

If thinking that as women, we should be able to take care of ourselves without needing men's help makes me a "gender traitor", then so be it. Give me a fucking badge, I'll wear it with honour.

Posted by: Sophie | July 20, 2011 6:46 PM

@Sophie:

I'm only about halfway through the comments but can I just say that I am a woman and have absolutely no problem with "Twatson". I have on many occasion called people of various genders twats, cunts, dicks, wankers and warthog-faced buffoons when they deserved it (no offense to warthogs).

Oh for fuck's sake! Here's another gender-traitor, ignorant of the social and cultural history of words like "twat" and "cunt", and how they denigrate women. Do you not realise that using terms which signify female genitalia to insult people is preventing women from achieving equality? You're basically saying that there's something wrong with vaginas, and that to be labelled as one is a tremendous insult. Get a brain, cupcake.

Look, as everyone knows, all of the True Feminists hang out over at Pharyngula, and this is what one of their Freedom Fighters had to say on the matter a mere 24 hours ago:

A lot of women, especially young women, are so immersed in the sexist status quo they often think in sexist ways and use sexist language. That does not mean it isn't harmful or toxic.

See? Even if you're a woman using those kinds of words it's still sexist: you're simply perpetuating the sexist status quo of our society! Get with the program, cupcake.

Can I also say, that as a woman, I am fucking insulted at the idea that women are so weak and powerless that they have to rely on the big, strong men to protect them. If a women is walking on a street with a strange man, why should he have to walk to the other side? Is she so incapable of crossing the street herself? Why do some women expect men to be responsible for women's safety? Because that to me is sexism. Shouldn't women be responsible for their own safety?

You really are fucking dense, aren't you? Just fuck off.

Posted by: Mr. DNA | July 20, 2011 6:52 PM

In reply to Mr. DNA at #492.

Um, that's sardonic irony, or sarcasm, or something? Yes?

Posted by: John Greg | July 20, 2011 6:54 PM

Some might consider this pedantic, but insults and derogatory language in general do not alone ad hominem make, whereas positing that the use of such language invalidates an argument or discredits the speaker or writer of them is ad hominem.

Ad hominem is when an insult is your argument, not when it accompanies one.

I've been seeing the term misused a lot, lately, and just thought that maybe some relevant people might see this and be reminded.

That is all.

Posted by: Saerain | July 20, 2011 6:57 PM

Sophie @489: ""Why should either person take the risk of crossing the street? Being hit by a car is a far greater likelihood than being sexually assaulted and all."

I actually do agree with you, I was just making the point that if a person is so afraid to the point of not wanting to be on the same side as another person, why is the onus on the other person to do something about it? Shouldn't we as individuals be responsible for our own safety?"

I most often take the big step of crossing the street when I see a group on the same sidewalk as mine which look threatening (drunk guys/violent girls (yes, we have girls gangs here that can be fucking violent)/anything you personally find threatening. I Will never expect them to go out of their way to accomodate my rational/irrational fears.

In other words, you are totaly correct.

JC @491: Tone trolling is not for here, it's for Pharyngula (or Room 12b)...

Posted by: Phil Giordana, FCD, aka Schroedinger's Dog | July 20, 2011 6:58 PM

Mr. DNA is definitely sarcastic and is throwing out some "feminist" arguments at her to show her some of the bullshit that we have put up with as of late.

Tabby, David is making generalizations about "feminism" of the pharyngula/skepchick flare. As far as I can tell, I agree with his assessment. They are definitely a tribal movement that hates all out-group members and will circle around RW to defend her. Then they will stomp their feet and stick their heads in the dirt to prevent all reason from seeping in, regardless of their so-called skeptic label.

Posted by: Phyraxus | July 20, 2011 7:05 PM

Tabby Lavalamp:
"Do you want me to show you feminist websites that don't censor and ban critics? (Reclusive Leftist would be a good start,"

I'm banned from there.

Actually she more than banned me, she blocked me from even SEEING the web site. Now that is pretty extreme. In fact I can't think of another case off hand though I think there were one or two.

In addition let me quote from Reclusive Leftist's comment policy.... oh wait I can't can I? Banned from accessing the web site. But (from memory) if you were to go and have a look at it then it explicitly says critics are not welcome. I'm not sure now about that as I couldn't find it under the Google cache so I may be confusing hers with another site.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 7:15 PM

Davidbyron@487:
I have no use for unsourced assumptions as to social group dynamics. Indeed, I have no use for wild assumptions on any particular matter.

If you have carefully reasoned, supported analysis on what you propose, I'll look at it. Otherwise, you might as well tell me you assume that voodoo practitioners prefer drinking AB- blood to O+. It is just as useful an expenditure of your time with respect to imparting to me any information. Idle speculation is something I'll leave for less discerning minds. Thanks for the protip though.

Sophie @ 489:
I get and take your point. I was more just throwing a balloon up about the issue. I see this crossing the street thing get mentioned and it pisses me off. I don't know any people who are that afraid of the outdoors who aren't taking medication for it.

I agree with you completely, and I've said many times: someone else's irrational fears are their problem to deal with, not mine.

It reminds me of a letter I saw on the internet about 10 years ago. The letter came from someone who lived in suburbia. Their fair neighborhood had been infiltrated by a vile, immoral, disgusting gay couple. This caused quite the consternation on the part of the letter-writer who wanted to know what could be done to remove the problem.

The response was perfect:
"You could move."

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 7:16 PM

@Justicar
It's not my job to educate you, so don't be so arrogant. I used to have a web site. Other web sites are out there. Google is your friend. I won't spoon feed you like a baby.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 20, 2011 7:26 PM

"As an example in this and the other threads on "elevatorgate" there was a lot of use of the word "creepy".

"Creepy" is used in that context as a sexual slur against men. Compare it with "slut" for example. "Creepy" is a word applied to men who perform poorly as judged by gender role expectations placed upon men but not women.

A man's role is to approach women. A lot. And get rejected a lot. So the man is in a double bind. He has to do the "shit work" of cold approaches and constant rejection. If he doesn't then he is a "wimp" or "fag". And at the same time if he performs badly by female demands then he is "creepy".

So the use of "creepy" in this context is a sexual slam against men to contain them in their tightly restrictive gender role.

If feminists genuinely cared about the sexist use of language in our society they would make such an analysis. On the contrary we find them employing such sexist language against men to preserve their female privilege. That clear hypocrisy is why I never take seriously any feminist on the subject of how words can denigrate women."

THIS^^

Yes, the complete lack of equality has shown me what these "feminists" are really all about.

Posted by: Phyraxus | July 20, 2011 7:30 PM

Sigh, it gets worse. This from Jennifer Oulette, and according to The Bearded Wonder: "Read her four-point manifesto for change. If you can't see the value of it, you are the problem."

it's not all bad.

Point 1 is something I tell women and minorities to do all the time: show the fuck up. You want change, don't wait for anyone to do it for you, make it happen. Show up. Sit in the front row.

Point 2: Yes and no. Yes, just because it happened to someone else doesn't make it not valid, however, something not being a problem for you because it hasn't happened to you yet is not an invalid thought process. I also get irate at overuse of twee phrases like "sisters in feminism". It also implies that disagreement is bad and diminishes one side. Well, no. It just means person a and person b don't see things the same way. For example, I disagree with Abbie about Mountain Dew. She thinks it's the most awesome shit ever, to me, other than the rare appearance of Pitch Black, it's carbonated urine. I'm not "diminishing" her by disagreeing with her unless I say "Liking Mountain Dew means Abbie's a stupid bitch" or what have you. Her viewpoint on soda is just as valid as mine, us disagreeing on Mt. Dew doesn't diminish either of us unless we use that disagreement to justify actual actions, verbal or otherwise, that are attempts to diminish the other. tl;dr No, disagreement is not bad.

Point 3: I completely agree. The tone, and standards of behavior have to be clearly articulated by the conference organizers. It doesn't always have to be some mission statement, it can be be done via clear, consistent action. But yes, it does have to happen at the top.

Point 4: eeee...see, here's where it gets sticky. Because now, we're asking people to get inside of someone's head. I'd rather see this point be about "look, you're in a public setting, perhaps "TITS OR GTFO" isn't what anyone should be yelling." If she kind of stopped early on in this point, i'd be more comfortable with her, but by the end of it, she clearly establishes her belief that any comment a woman makes to a man is always correct and disagreement with it means you're wrong:

If a woman calls you out on your behavior, instead of getting angry and defensive, just say, “Wow, I never thought of it like that. I’m sorry if I made you uncomfortable. It wasn’t intentional.” Cop to the behavior, and we can all move on. Or just be like that anonymous guy at Watson’s TAM9 quiz show event; as Watson took the stage, he shouted, “WE RESPECT WOMEN’S VOICES SO HARD!”

But what if she's wrong? What if she's misinterpreting his actions? What if she didn't hear something right or misread his body language? What if she's assuming maliciousness when the right answer is unintentional stupidity?

Jennifer's manifesto makes no allowances for that. The man must be the one who's at fault. The man must then apologize. The man must change his behavior.

I read Jennifer's column regularly and enjoy it, but I think she's wrong on that. The first action shouldn't be "calling you out" the first action should be "Hey, did you mean (interpretation) by that? Because if so, (why that came across badly)." Maybe the answer from the man is "Oh, you missed (important pertinent part)" and then both learn to be better about communication. Maybe it wasn't even directed at her, but the person behind her whom the guy knows really well and is speaking to in a manner appropriate for their relationship. (I've a very good friend, going on two decades now, and our terms for each other is "WHERE'S MY BITCHES AT" (from her) and "BITCH, WHADDUP!" (from me). Usually screamed across crowded rooms, followed by much squeeing and hugging. Now, if you're between me and her, I could easily see why that might take you aback, but if you tried "calling me out on it", my response would be some form of "um...talking to HER, not you", with the "polish" on it based on how you approached me.)

Perhaps, rather than saying "if you're called out, you're wrong" she might say "If someone says/does something that you interpret as 'bad', you might ask them about it and make sure they actually meant it that way. If they did, then explain why it's not a good thing to do *with you* and why they might be more careful about (action) in the future with people they don't know."

It's not as fun or pithy, but in the long run, better, at least I think so. I just really dislike it when someone says or implies "if a woman takes something a man does/says in a way she doesn't like, he's always wrong".

Of course, that's probably why PZ likes it.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 20, 2011 7:36 PM

John Greg:
"...link to Watson's post wherein she quite clearly, specifically, and directly associated McGraw, and McGraw's comments, with rape apologists, mysogynists [sic], and other forms of anti-feminists. OK, OK, so she didn't specifically say McGraw was a "gender traitor" -- phew. Rather, McGraw is a rape apologist, a mysoginist [sic], and an anti-feminst."

Those are your words, and the conflated words of numerous other commenters in that thread. Not of Rebecca Watson herself.

Misogyny is not an insult. It is an undesirable character trait that may be insulting, but the two are not necessarily equivalent.

You also said
"When did you become such a chickenshit apologist for all things Watson and/or all things Skepchick? Are you PZ Myers in pink or something?"

You are rude, and you are childish. Do not confuse this with "tone trolling" on my behalf. I simply will not engage with seventh graders.

Good day.

Posted by: Steve Thoms | July 20, 2011 7:43 PM

John C. Welch @510:
I just wrote an article on that - someone sent me a quote from it and wanted to know my thoughts on it.

http://integralmath.blogspot.com/2011/07/helga-magic-lesbian-will-not-be-seen.html

I also added in how I would handle the "hand on the knee" bit in her article.

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.

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 7:48 PM

he stopped using words, discussion, and reasoning, and kept doing what he do, which is, to 'do'

mccullrd-- I fail to see how that can be viewed as a “warrior’s response”

lol.

Seriously? lol?

By your reasoning, refusing to engage criticism and continuing to do what you're doing is an awesome response.

So I guess Bush (and Obama), Bachmann, Palin, O'reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Foxx New, et.al. - are all really awesome in their response to criticism?

That constitutes super warrior skills?

Does that also include minimizing, or even ignoring similar "doing" on the part of those you disagree with, even if they can't match the scale of your superior warrior?

I recognize that Dawkins is generally in tune with the wider skeptical community, but this action in no way constitutes a response to the criticism leveled toward him. Exactly how does funding childcare address criticism pointing to his male privilege showing? I think suggesting that is itself sexist - it implies it benefits primarily women, as though men aren't concerned with childcare while trying to attend skeptic events.

Posted by: mccullrd | July 20, 2011 7:53 PM

512:

Those are your words, and the conflated words of numerous other commenters in that thread. Not of Rebecca Watson herself.

No, you canucklehead, watson said that. She said that McGraw was "parroting misogynistic thought" and was "espousing anti-woman sentiment". Watson said that. About Stef. With her in the room.

Misogyny is not an insult. It is an undesirable character trait that may be insulting, but the two are not necessarily equivalent.

When the word is used to hurt, demean, and belittle people, it is an insult. When it is used as the basis for ad hominem dismissal of not only someone's argument, but of that PERSON, it is an insult. You're really bad at sophistry. You should stop trying to use it. Really. You suck at it. Like a dyson in a black hole.

You also said "When did you become such a chickenshit apologist for all things Watson and/or all things Skepchick? Are you PZ Myers in pink or something?"

You are rude, and you are childish. Do not confuse this with "tone trolling" on my behalf. I simply will not engage with seventh graders.

No, you'll just act like the patronizing cockknocker you are, and think "THERE! I TOLD THE INTERNET!"

Good day.

NO SIR, YOU SHALL NOT "GOOD DAY" ME. FOUL DAYS UPON YOU AND YOURS UNTO THE TENTH GENERATION! SMITHERS! FETCH MY BEATING TRUNCHEON AND MY HANDMAIDENS! IT IS TIME TO RIDE FORTH AND PACIFY THE HEATHENS AGAIN!

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 20, 2011 7:57 PM

In reply to Thoms #512.

Ha,ha. Sorry for the spelling mistakes. Good call. Being such a pedant I am always grateful, if embarrassed, when being caught out on my slip ups. Now, on to brass tacks....

Thoms, the quote I quoted were Watson's words. If you are incapable of seeing the not only tacit and implicit but blatant and direct association and accusation between her words -- accusations of mysogyny, anti-feminism, and rape apology -- with McGraw, then you have remarkably poor reading comprehension.

Or you have been taken in by, or are a supporter of rhetorical trickery -- Watson and Myers are experts in rhetorical trickery that gives them plausible, but false deniability. In a word they prevaricate. Expertly.

Or, perhaps, you are simply a hypocrite and a Watson apologist. Like it or not.

Thoms, as you may recall, I have been aware of your posting at skepchick.org, at your own blog, and at the Skeptic North blog for some time now. It is my experience and opinion, rude or not, from myriad posts by you that you are almost certainly generally a Skepchick apologist and specifically a Watson apologist.

You are also deeply uncomfortable with dissent and disagreement and are a supporter of not only banning and moderating of dissent and disagreement, you are also a supporter and enactor of actual censorship of comments to change and weaken their argument.

Sorry Thoms, you are simply not a credible commentor, nor a credible skeptic.

Posted by: John Greg | July 20, 2011 8:00 PM

@Justicar: Is there perhaps some sort of history here with DavidByron that I'm not aware of, with my only having popped up in the whole atheist blogosphere a few days ago? I see what you're saying, and making baseless assumptions will indeed get us nowhere, but it seemed to me that DavidByron was making a tentative claim that essentially supports what we've arguing in favour of. *shrug*

@Phyraxus: Keep up the sterling work! I'd join you, but I was over there for a good two and half hours last night, and it really was like talking to a brick fucking wall. Let us know when the first accusation of your being a "cupcake" lands.

@Steve Thoms: What a pathetic, snivelling waste of a post that was. If you're going to stroll in and post then at least try to engage with the arguments that we're making, instead of trolling about the langauge that we're using, and then hitting us with a patronising "Good day". Good grief.

Posted by: Mr. DNA | July 20, 2011 8:11 PM

Mr. DNA:
I have no interaction before this thread. I don't know him from Adam.

But when someone comes up to me present a putative explanation about something and start off with "I assume" and then tell me the conclusion, I immediately dismiss them from the conversation. They might be right, but if so it's only going to be by accident. I don't like those odds, so I decline to accept the conclusion on someone's assumption.

Yes, in science and math we make assumptions. Those assumptions are not the conclusion of a problem. They come at the beginning as a place to start from, the thing to test.

If I assume x to be the case, what can I do to test x to see how it holds it? Ok, I assume x is wrong, what data suggests this? How can I get those data? How can I can control a problem to only see if x plays a role?

It doesn't go, "I assume x is the case. QED."

tas121790 @ 524:
I chuckled.

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 8:22 PM

I tried, we'll see:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2011/07/20/is-it-cold-in-here/#comment-25

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 20, 2011 8:25 PM

Re: 'creepy', 'gay', 'twat' and the like.

I agree that if one of those is sexist (or some other prejudice/stereotype) then the others are too.

However, I've always had taken issue with the idea that such and such a word is homophobic, sexist or whatever. I tend to go along with philosopher H.P. Grice and interpret linguistic meaning in terms of speaker's intention.

It's perfectly possible for somebody to hear the word 'gay' with the meaning bad and adopt the word with the same meaning. It doesn't 'make it homophobic' when they use it, so long as the intention with which they wish to communicate is in no way homophobic.

Even for those who disagree, it is not sufficient to simply say "no - I'm just saying the word is homophobic, not the phrase or the person" without defending this particular theory of meaning. If they do not, then the point is moot. Sorry for spouting philosophy on a science blog.

Posted by: Notung | July 20, 2011 8:29 PM

@Sophie

Just to be clear, as I don't think it would be unless you have read the whole thread; Mr.DNA was not disagreeing with you in post #492, the comment was totally tongue in cheek. Sorry if you already got that, but the thread got a little confusing there for a while I think.

Posted by: Skepcheck | July 20, 2011 8:38 PM

Just someone else piling on Raging Bee:

Again, this stupid-assed accusation has already been dealt with. Short answer (because even that is more than you're worth): simple threat-assessment and routine precautions are NOT "stereotyping" or "sexism." (Besides, outside of prison, the overwhelming majority of rapes are indeed committed by men; so being more cautious of men is not at all unfair.)

So, if I'm hiring people for work, I should assume all brown people might be illegal aliens and not hire them because they are more likely to be illegal aliens? I could lose money if I hire illegal aliens and the state inspects my business, so it's just simple "threat-assessment" and "routine precaution".

It's not that this is necessarily an illegitimate position so long as one doesn't believe in the egalitarian ideal, but it is rank hypocrisy to proclaim that one type of stereotyping is risk management while the other is racism. That is, if one is consistent about one's commitment to equality.

But from a rational perspective, these positions could be "risk management" or discrimination depending on one's point of view, and the line is not always clear between the two. Discrimination can sometimes be born from naivete, sometimes from particular dangers being exaggerated to the level of paranoia, sometimes from fears that are grounded in reality to some degree, but it's all still discrimination in a sense. The question is whether our discriminatory point of view is justified in light of the evidence or not. We can use data, but people oftentimes misinterpret data and use it to prop up unjustified stereotypes that don't exist in reality. My own guess is that some of these sexist and racist smatterings of nonsense come about by the abuse and misappropriation of both good and bad statistics.

It might be interesting to analyze the elevator situation again from a different perspective so as to see some of the inconsistencies brought about by contrast, so I'll change the situation a bit (someone else mentioned something similar before): After an atheist conference a white guy and a black guy get into an elevator at 4AM after the white guy announced he was going back to his room to go to sleep. The black guy says "Do you have any change on you? My friends and I are going to play poker in my room and I was wondering if you would like to join." The white guy refuses the offer and starts fearing the black guy might rob him. He then makes a video explaining in a very mild way that it makes him nervous for a black guy to talk to him about that sort of thing in an elevator at 4 in the morning.

How is this situation different? How would it be treated if the white guy considered himself a leader in the skeptical movement? Would we then see defenses of the leader, and how that otherwise innocent offer couldn't be anything but an enticement to coax the white guy into the black guy's room so he and his friends could rob the white guy? Somehow I don't think so. An interesting question brought about by the contrast is this: at what point does "risk assessment" become unjustified paranoia (and, by extension, racism in this hypothetical case)? When feminists say to people who believe that such fear in this situation is unjustified that they are supporters of rape, is that justified "risk assessment" of the people in question or an exaggeration of reality? I suppose my question is whether calling Dawkins and others rape apologists (and similar names) a legitimate extension of the concept of "rape" or not.

My own opinion is that the whole situation is a good example of how a commitment to rationality and a commitment to equality (and our separate series of justifications and extrapolations for both non-rational ideals) can conflict with one another. An otherwise boring non-issue is blown out of proportion, and real issues about Watson's appropriateness as speaker fade to the background. I can count myself as someone who continues puffing up this pointless nonsense even now, but, as a train-wreck, it's too interesting for myself and apparently many others to pass up. It is yet another entry in the long line of modern GENDER WARS issues that do nothing and mean less than nothing.

Posted by: anonymouroboros | July 20, 2011 8:44 PM

532:

She got Dawky Punched. And it took no extra effort at all to do it. Essentially, he held out his fist for her to run into, really, really hard. Like a good pet monkey, she pleasingly obliged and ran full into this Dawkslap

I see what you did there.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 20, 2011 8:49 PM

@535

[/tipo'thehat]

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 8:57 PM

Over at Greg Laden's blog, they are still stumbling through the meaning of ad hominem....

ERV, nice job of addressing Laden's position. He is under the sway of his next wave svengali's, and their need for paternalism cloaked as feminist rhetoric.

Rebecca's been Dawkslapped....very funny

Posted by: pornonymous | July 20, 2011 9:16 PM

"Twatson"?

Shame on you now and forever, ERV. You've forfeited your right to be listened to on this issue when you use this kind of obscene and vile sexist language.

Posted by: Adam Lee | July 20, 2011 9:55 PM

There's a couple of problems. One being, to give the benefit of the doubt, that Dawkins may actually have been embarrassed at the way his words came across and people's reaction to them. So to rebuild his reputation, he understated his part when something good he was planning went through. If that's the case, his intentions have been trashed.

Another problem being that a man giving women a generous gesture that's impossible to refuse following a public patronizing, silencing, and belittling lecture can have ugly implications. When it's announced with more patronizing, silencing, and belittling language, the writing gets a lot larger. When there's actually gloating, the whole thing is tainted.

Finally: you want to say this is good for women when you're attacking a woman (and feminists) with language that insults all women? Um, I'm not sure you're getting the idea here.

I've been thinking about what an ugly post this was all day, unfortunately. I'll remember to avoid your blog after this. (Note: buying me something nice to make up for it will not work.)

Posted by: kelian | July 20, 2011 9:56 PM

Blame me for the Twatson thing. I'm a well-known bad influence. I come with a surgeon general's warning and all.

Hey, Adam Lee, I noticed you aren't over at skepchick bitching and complaining and calling them down and telling them they've forfeited their right to be listened on this issue incident to the "Dear Dick" campaign.

I'll hypocrisy for $2,000, Alex. Oh, the Daily Double on feigned moral outrage - sweet! I'm a pro at this category!

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 9:58 PM

LOL, Benson and her readers no likey this post. The level of melodrama in the comments is staggering.

Posted by: TylerD | July 20, 2011 10:03 PM

Speaking of that post (and the subsequent comments) it really is amazing how so much of the Twatsonian position is based on the notion that women in the atheist/skeptic movement represent a valid cross-section of women in general, rather than just the entitled and stuck up ones.

Posted by: TylerD | July 20, 2011 10:09 PM

I tell you what! That Philip Legge has a hard-on for me.
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/what-was-that-we-were-saying-about-sexist-epithets-five-years-ago/#comment-99929

I'm like his internet pet or something. But he never leaves me any food on my keyboard. The little shit.

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 10:11 PM

John,

Sue that fuck for libel. I don't exactly know the details of the situation but based on Laden's past behavior I wouldn't exactly put complete fabrication past him.

Posted by: TylerD | July 20, 2011 10:16 PM

Kelian@552:
I wasn't offering. Just asking. There your side goes again just assuming what people are thinking. Asshole.

So, it didn't deal with the announcement he made, but you wrote, "When it's announced with more patronizing, silencing, and belittling language, the writing gets a lot larger. When there's actually gloating, the whole thing is tainted."

I guess the comment section of a blog answering a question is what we're calling his announcement of daycare. Boy howdy, you really can read between the lines.

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 10:19 PM

You're not every smart, Mcdullard.

I'm aware that her comments to Stef came before her comments to Dawkins, which is why I put that parenthetical in her response to Dawkins noting it linked back to what she said to Stef.

See, when I write my blog and link to something, it's saying, "here's information that bears on what I'm saying". I don't just link to things for the practice in linking.

So, she linked to it. That means it's relevant to what she's saying. She used that section to explain what she was saying. She went from that explanation with that link to a new paragraph still talking about Dawkins.

Logic is hard, huh?

You're a fucking moron.

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 10:26 PM

Justicar,

And again, you fail to address the topic of this post, and the issue I contested. Show how Dawkins' announcement that his foundation will fund childcare at future events is an any way an intentional response to the criticisms leveled at him.

I believe the relevant word is - dense.

Posted by: mccullrd | July 20, 2011 10:42 PM

Testing. I have a comment in moderation.

Posted by: TylerD | July 20, 2011 10:52 PM

Mcdullard:
This was in the works for a long while.

It was planned to be announced at TAM.

Twatson happened.

Twatson cried that Dawkins is the past, is useless, is a hasbeen, does so little for atheism and feminism and blah blah blah.

Dawkins made his announcement at TAM.

Remove the bit about Twatson and the sequence remains the same.

The fact that Twatson was also advocating against Dawkins while this was all happening anyway only shows how fucking stupid she is. Serendipity is cruel that way. Irony's a bitch.

And your time is up.

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 11:08 PM

I posted a long comment over at Ouellette's blog thing (as per John C Welch's #527).

It's URLed as comment 39, but shows up as comment 24. I did not see John C Welch's comment (URLed as 24?).

Maybe some folks are being disallowed for being dissentors. If my comment gets removed, I'll post it here.

Posted by: John Greg | July 20, 2011 11:14 PM

John Greg:
I saw your comment, but John C. Welch's is not showing up. She very well could be moderating the comments.

Posted by: Justin M. Stoddard | July 20, 2011 11:25 PM

Nice comment, John Greg.

You wasted your time, but good post.

Meanwhile, Aratina Cage is letting the world know he doesn't care what I say or think and ignoring and blocking me!

I now have to go around to all of the blogs and point out that people who don't care what I think probably don't go around to all the blogs leaving remarks to tell everyone they don't care what I think.

Like my nutsack, he just can't keep my name out of his mouth.

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 11:33 PM

Lawl.

Anyone here good at graphic design? If so, I have a great idea for a tshirt, with all proceeds going to the RD people.

Get a ticket looking thing, have it say something like "Big Daddy Dawkins Daycare - admits one whiny asshole" or something along those lines. If you're the graphic artist kind of person, feel free to play around with it.

"Dear Dick Daycare - admits one sucker"

Meh, play with it, and raise some money. Send it to the Dawkins!

Posted by: Justicar | July 20, 2011 11:53 PM

Sophie, shh.

We men are deciding what you'll think about an issue. Just give us a minute to get your opinion ready for you so you can tell people what it is, ok?

Sheesh, all having her own thoughts and shit. Where'd she get a crazy idea she could do something like that from?!

Posted by: Justicar | July 21, 2011 12:04 AM

Could you not use so many "haha"s in your comments?

It's really slowing down my broadband, dude. The extra time it took to load that much data almost overloaded the network. Why are you such a hacker, bro? Asshole.

Posted by: Justicar | July 21, 2011 1:08 AM

Because we're all alcoholics over here.

Except the one outcast over there in the corner.

Posted by: Justicar | July 21, 2011 2:28 AM

I think accusing people of "hacking them" may be a sign they're getting tired of wailing about "Twatson". Anything to cling to...

In a hilarious side-note, my husband came out of his workplace today with a funny look on his face. Apparently a random stranger was flirting with him in the elevator. Maybe elevator flirting is a thing now?

Posted by: Rayshul | July 21, 2011 2:43 AM

Rayshul:
I'll believe it when I see a youtube video and Richard Dawkins calling him a pansy, and PZ breaking her neck to run and coddle him. Oh wait, PZ's equality towards the sexes only moves in one direction. Sorry, he's on his own this time around!

Posted by: Justicar | July 21, 2011 2:56 AM

@579
Alcoholics?! Do you realize how male alcohol drinking harms and affects women?!

You should be ashamed of yourselfs.

I mean, let's just start with the fact that your sperm count is decreased--meaning that you might dump more sperm on helpless victims of "after hours sex"

I am so mad right now...

Posted by: pornonymous | July 21, 2011 3:05 AM

"Twatson"?

Shame on you now and forever, ERV. You've forfeited your right to be listened to on this issue when you use this kind of obscene and vile sexist language.

I love this kind of stuff, PZ Myers says a whole bunch of people are misogynists, and all men potential rapists, men are compared to dogs that need their noses smacked with newspapers (by the way, please don't hit dogs on the nose with newspapers). ERV is a gender traitor because she doesn't buy the bullshit, and quite frankly, extremely sexist dogma. I don't want to live in the society the ideological purists want to create, I'm too liberal for that.

Twatson though, that's going a bit far?

See, I'm a believer in gender equality, and you know, I don't think it's okay when it comes from either gender, directed at either gender. (Or even less common gender, sexuality's whatever)

Twatson is really, really tame though. I mean, look up what twat means (remember, words can have more than one meaning, I use the phrase black comedy, and I'm not a racist). ERV changed someone's name into something silly and quite tame for comedic effect.

Get some perspective, or as Dawkin's said, Dear Muslima ... (Yes, I'm stealing Dear Muslima, yes, I'm using it how Dawkins was in a get some perspective way).

Posted by: Peter | July 21, 2011 4:02 AM

Oh Peter, you can dismiss them out of hand since they're perfectly fine with the "Dear Dick" campaign (which is why I started the Twatson thing). Of course, I'm vile and all that jazz - Twatson et al are just being clever.

Posted by: Justicar | July 21, 2011 4:20 AM

Actually, I think I just read you wrong there, my apologies if so.

Posted by: Peter | July 21, 2011 4:36 AM

You gotta give justicar the credit for twatson tho. He coined the phrase.

Yeah, fucking amazing, tone trolling, that is what they are resorting to know. Jesus fucking Christ, the creationists called and they want their tactics back.

He-who-shall-not-be-named actually responded to my trolling, gave me some bullshit that a woman astronaut wearing a diaper is creepy therefore it isn't sexist. Seriously? Cuz I call my male friends cunts, twats, and bitches all the time therefore, they aren't sexist words either. WTF?

Then he disregarded my actual point and said I bought into the whole men are supposed to hit on women and all that shit then told me to grow up. I replied in non-troll form, he didn't bother responding but did post again on the thread. What a fucking coward.

Posted by: Phyraxus | July 21, 2011 4:45 AM

I hate to tone troll (ok, that’s a damnable lie), but I really have to take issue with the use of “coup de grace”.

Unforced opportunities to reference WarGames are rare, but this was clearly a Winning Move by Prof Dawkins.

GREETINGS PROFESSOR DAWKINS

HELLO

A STRANGE GAME.
THE ONLY WINNING MOVE IS
NOT TO PLAY.

Posted by: Aj | July 21, 2011 5:08 AM

Jumping in late without even reading most of these comments yet, due to this lashing out thing that PZ wrote:

PZ wrote: "I also have some personal, private information about some of the participants in the argument, facts about some of the people on the anti-Watson side, that make their comments look self-serving and prejudicial to me. They're personal and private, though, so they are irrelevant, and I'm not going to take the cheap shot of revealing them."

No, you'll just take the cheap shot of a partly-veiled threat to make the other people do as you tell them. They should pretend they agree and suppress their actual thoughts in order to take on your party line. I would paraphrase the above quote as "if you keep disagreeing with me and expecting me to explain myself, I'm going to show private info of yours, which I think will make people think you're of bad character. So, shut up and listen to me, a man who has determined what's best for ALL women, or, or, or, or else I'm telling."

PZ, I'm revoking your honourary vulva membership card. You're not entitled anymore. And about that article you ordered people on twitter to read "Now!", the 'chilly' one, well, what do ACTUAL contact assault/harassment and classism (from established high ranking scientists towards an undergrad) have to do with the non-event that Watson experienced? You know the one I mean, don't you? The one where the guy did exactly what us women WANT them to do: treated us like adults who don't go 'eek' at a polite sex offer, and ACCEPTED "NO" FOR THE "NO" IT IS. This is a bad thing??????????

Or is it the offer itself that's bad? Ahhhh, we're getting closer to the non-reality based assumption that an offer of sex is bad, oppressive, sinful, dirty, demeaning, a put down, "objectification", "sexualizing", etc. Why is it bad if no force, coercion or insult happens? Seriously, why is it an offensive thing to be thought attractive and invited for sex?

Is there an automatic assumption of "waaa, you ONLY want my body and are ignoring my brain, waaaa"? Shall we change society from the imbalance of not noticing our brains over to the imbalance of not noticing our sexuality? That's switching one imbalance for another.

EG was appreciating both it seems, and there's nothing wrong with that. If Watson has become in recent years, uncomfortable with polite sex offers and men thinking she's attractive, then why doesn't she just ugly herself up a bit more. She's given it a good start with the thick glasses look and all. Just do a little more. I've known women who dislike being attractive and who do this successfully.

Oh wait a minute, maybe she has the same attitude as what McCreight wrote about a while back. Something about hating if men who are old or ugly are attracted to her, but that she'd be just fine about it if there were only a couple of them and they were really good looking. Yeah, ok... huh?

Posted by: Scented Nectar | July 21, 2011 7:30 AM

577:
DON'T HACK ME BRO!

582:

JCW, DoS attacks are often made possible by shitty programming if you know how to exploit it. That said, the question of malevolence on your part has everything to do with intention. Raging Bee's pompous lecturing shows just how much of an ignorant shitheel he is.

Oh I know that bit. It's just...well when you say DoS/DOS to someone in IT, it's a pretty specific thing. I've had to deal with them, both deliberate, and inadvertant. (fireballing/slashdotting can become inadvertant DoS'ing.) It's just hilarious that someone would classify a long comment as one. And seriously, a "multi-megabyte" comment? I have 80-PAGE text files that are only 281K. For someone who fancies themselves some kind of tech maven, Laden...he's a good anthropologist.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 21, 2011 7:59 AM

@Steve Caldwell:

(2) Assume good will until proven otherwise. Instead of assuming that Richard Dawkins' conference child care gesture was done as a jerkish "gotcha" in response to "elevatorgate," I would assume that he is a decent person who is trying to make the world better and this is just an example of this. Until there is evidence to the contrary, I will assume that his motives are decent and he is not a jerk.

Steve, if you read ERV's OP then you cannot fail to notice that ERV did not assume "that Richard Dawkins' conference child care gesture was done as a jerkish "gotcha" in response to elevatorgate". Indeed, she makes it absolutely plain that the childcare funding had been in the works long before Elevator Gate, and that it was simply an ironic and awesome coincidence that Dawkins was able to ram it right up the cretinous morons who have been slandering him over the past month. Your little ramble there sounds every bit as disingenuous as when Jen McCreight posted the following on her blag in response to the RDFRS calling her out for suggesting that this was a cynical, political ploy from Dawkins:

I hope you're leaving this same message on the blogs of your supporters like ERV, who are trying to portray this move as Richard giving the middle finger to those who disagree with him.

ERV did indeed gloat, and quite rightly too, about how awesome it is that whilst BlagHag and Twatson and all of the other True Feminists were shrieking with outrage on the intarwebz, Dawkins decided to leave the fucking idiots to it and actually do something useful for the world. The pertinent point here, however, is that this was not a cynical move from Dawkins, trying to save face- it had been in the works for a long time beforehand and the timing was incidental. Do try to improve your reading comprehension skillz, you cretinous twat.

Posted by: Mr. DNA | July 21, 2011 8:07 AM

This is one of the things that pisses me off with the appologetics side of this argument - you aren't actually honest. At. All.

Okay so what happened? RW found something creepy, and pointed out that being creepy (using the elevator guy as an example) isn't going to get you laid.

She got some flack for this and some other women pointed out that they also found the behaviour creepy and raised their own reasons for it (including the bit about "Well its kind of rapey").

And so you have a bunch of morons responding that RW likened an unwelcome come-on to rape - because quite frankly they can't criticise the original point and are too dishonest to accept it might be valid.

And you have another bunch of morons arguing that Watson said that hitting on women is verboten forever, because she doesn't want to be propositioned in that manner.

You know if you can't think of a different time to 4am in an elevator after a woman has just given a talk on how she doesn't want to be sexually objectified to aks for sex, do the world a favour and just stay out of the fucking gene pool.

Intelligence may or may not be genetic, but you wouldn't be doing any potential kids any favours.

Anyway she got pissed off eventually when someone of very high profile (And its funny how the cultist claim is being bleated against people who are essentially not agreeing with the high profile name btw) basically joined in.

All of this was basically sexist because all of it was just excuses to not pay any attention to the woman when she talked about how being hit on in that specific circumstance was a turn-off.

She was and still is getting vilified for shit she never actually said - because that is so much more convenient than actually not being creepy at conferences.

Eish.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 21, 2011 8:34 AM

Oh, and Wow

Schrodinger's Rapist was actually by a romance novelist calling herself Phaedra Starling. Not RW.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 21, 2011 8:41 AM

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 21, 2011 8:40 AM

Its not mind reading if it is in text.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 21, 2011 8:49 AM

I was ambivalent about the whole thing... big deal. RW was uncomfortable... But using the word twat? You might as well use cunt. Is this what you really think of me or any other woman who dares to put herself out in the world? For shame. You can disagree with someone all you want, but slurs? Really? Let's compare.... If I called a black person n-------, would that be over the top? What about all the other ethnic slurs? What about the slurs against the GLBT community? Are those all okay now too?

Posted by: chris | July 21, 2011 9:16 AM

Don't worry everyone: PZ's latest post explains the REAL problem at work behind all of this. The problem is gamers. You see, gamers are largely clueless man-children. Their brains are poisoned by testosterone. This has the effect of making them sexist. I mean, someone was called a fag while playing an MMO. STOP THE PRESSES!

I wasn't aware that testosterone was so dangerous. But apparently it's what causes sexism. PZ is, after all, a biologist. He would know. Well, I'm off to go get castrated. I'm not sure what can be done for the women who disagree with PZ, though...

Posted by: Stephen Bahl | July 21, 2011 9:41 AM

>>Well, I'm off to go get castrated.

No loss to the genepool.

Posted by: Myrna | July 21, 2011 9:49 AM

Apologies for the double post. It wasn't anything I did, as far as I can tell. I hit "post" and my internet connection went haywire. When it was back to normal, the comment had been sent twice somehow.

Anyway, PZ's insinuation that the problem might be the influence of gamers because he's played an MMO and people were mean there seems similar to the assertion earlier that people making rude comments on YouTube was indicative of anything. I mean, I don't think it's indicative of anything, anyway. There's never been a law restricting morons from using the internet. It's not like seeing or hearing bad/stupid comments MUST MEAN SOMETHING.

Posted by: Stephen Bahl | July 21, 2011 9:52 AM

So touching to see that all you manly whingers have found a mighty warrior-princess to nurse the thousand little hurts that those awful femtards have inflicted on your tender souls. Just stay here, ok?

Posted by: Myrna | July 21, 2011 9:58 AM

DavidByron @503

But (from memory) if you were to go and have a look at it then it explicitly says critics are not welcome. I'm not sure now about that as I couldn't find it under the Google cache so I may be confusing hers with another site.

Ask and ye shall received.

Comments are welcome, unless you’re a twit.
Also, you have to pass the stick test, originally conceived by Chris Clarke:
I really think Twisty ought to get a stick, post it at the entrance to her blog at about 4 foot 6 inches off the ground, like at the carnival rides, and post a sign saying “You must be smarter than this stick to comment here.”
I am not sure if Twisty Faster ever installed said metaphorical stick at her own blog, but I sure as hell did at mine.

Granted, "twit" is entirely subjective. But considering how you equate feminists with white supremacists, I can see how you may have been granted that status. I've seen critics post comments there and not get banned, even if they and Dr. Socks disagreed vehemently. But a self-described "liberal" who claims NOW is the same thing as Stormfront? Yeah, I can see how she could tolerate that for only so long.

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | July 21, 2011 10:32 AM

No loss to the genepool.

Your rapier wit has maimed me. Alas, I cannot strike back with a barb of my own as all this testosterone has poisoned my brain!

Posted by: Stephen Bahl | July 21, 2011 10:49 AM

@Justicar
"I appreciate the attempt at condescending to me; it's special."

Your welcome.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 11:06 AM

@Tabby lavalamp
"I've seen critics post comments there and not get banned, even if they and Dr. Socks disagreed vehemently. But a self-described "liberal" who claims NOW is the same thing as Stormfront? Yeah, I can see how she could tolerate that for only so long."

Well as I said -- this seems to be misunderstood by people so I'll go over it explicitly -- I sometimes post stuff that tends to show I am wrong. OK? because I'm weirdly honest. When I do so you don't get to yell "gotcha" as if I was hiding it and you discovered it by yourself or something.

Well it doesn't seem weird to me but apparently its so weird other people feel i can't really have intended it and therefore give them self credit for the "discovery".

So, yes I was wrong in my memory about that site's comment policy - confused with another site maybe. I did try to check the facts but as I'm banned from even viewing that site I was only able to get the Google cache which I admitted ran against me. I said that,

Anyway -- to get back on point we have reached an agreement which is that we both agree feminists censor and they pretty much have to. So that's good right? We substantially agree on a point you initially assumed I was wrong on.

Now can we get back to why you think that profiling on the basis of race is wrong, but profiling against men is a good idea? (eg "OOoooh he might be a rapist so I should respond to him as if he was dangerous") You keep saying that this point has been replied to on other boards but I have never seen any such reply. To me it is all the same. Negative stereotyping for mere administrative convenience is prejudicial.

In fact the practical advantage of stereotyping all Mexican-looking people in Nevada is far greater than women's advantage to thinking all men are rapists. The former arguably might help enforcement of immigration (it doesn't) but the later just fucks up the women having such terrifying and prejudicial thoughts and actually probably makes them LESS SAFE if anything.

Beyond the ethics this is a point in law as discrimination is outlawed under the 14th amendment and decades of legal decisions have framed when exactly something is profiling and when it is not. Obviously they consider only actions by the government and government contractors not individuals. There's no law against being racist or sexist. But sexist is the correct word to describe prejudicial stereotyping of men as a group in the way you advocate.

Once again if there really is an answering argument from the feminists I have yet to see it and I would LOVE to hear it. Please please PLEASE tell me what it is.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 11:39 AM

I was hoping for a scinecy way of getting to a consensus, an agreement born out of logic, reason, and objective evaluation of facts and statements rather than coercion, intimidation, or name calling. I should not have entered this discussion because it gives me nightmares at this point but I do enjoy reading your blog and your sciency posts.

You are obviously not following. It's all about DA PRIVILEGE, which can very sciencily be proven absolutely and totally to always belong to the man. This is done by constructing the scenario of a talking polar bear and a dumb equatorial blindworm stuck in a room fighting over the air conditioning control, thereby creating an uncontrived and subjective yardstick of privilege. It follows from this that you can just shut the fuck if you disgree with the His Royal Bearded Rightness and jesters.

Don't worry everyone: PZ's latest post explains the REAL problem at work behind all of this. The problem is gamers. You see, gamers are largely clueless man-children. Their brains are poisoned by testosterone. This has the effect of making them sexist. I mean, someone was called a fag while playing an MMO. STOP THE PRESSES!

It was obviously right from the off that PZ and company were arguing with caricatures in their heads. Did you not notice that crap about predatory frat-boy types and their wing-men in his preachy post about how to behave at events?

I still respect the man's intellect but I think that he will manage to alienate just about anyone when he eventually gets dogmatic about one of their hot buttons.

Posted by: ThreeFlangedJavis | July 21, 2011 11:47 AM

DavidByron

Well as I said -- this seems to be misunderstood by people so I'll go over it explicitly -- I sometimes post stuff that tends to show I am wrong. OK? because I'm weirdly honest. When I do so you don't get to yell "gotcha" as if I was hiding it and you discovered it by yourself or something.

Anyway -- to get back on point we have reached an agreement which is that we both agree feminists censor and they pretty much have to.

Now can we get back to why you think that profiling on the basis of race is wrong, but profiling against men is a good idea? (eg "OOoooh he might be a rapist so I should respond to him as if he was dangerous") You keep saying that this point has been replied to on other boards but I have never seen any such reply. To me it is all the same. Negative stereotyping for mere administrative convenience is prejudicial.

In fact the practical advantage of stereotyping all Mexican-looking people in Nevada is far greater than women's advantage to thinking all men are rapists.

Beyond the ethics this is a point in law as discrimination is outlawed under the 14th amendment and decades of legal decisions have framed when exactly something is profiling and when it is not.

There's no law against being racist or sexist. But sexist is the correct word to describe prejudicial stereotyping of men as a group in the way you advocate.

Now that's not to say that all men are potential rapists. What that does say though is that a potential rapist is likely a man.

If you're worried about about the sexism of a lone woman on a street concerned that the strange man approaching her is a potential rapist, instead of decrying her for being a sexist profiler, perhaps the better approach would be to get rapists to stop raping. Do you know what else would help? Instead of putting so much energy into accusing women of being sexist for being concerned about strange men (and frankly, I do think that gets too much emphasis considering how many rapes are committed by someone known to the victim), some of that energy could be put into changing a culture that blames rape victims.
It's a can't win situation. Worried about a man being a potential rapist? Sexist! Got raped? Should have known better than to put yourself in that situation!
I'm not saying you agree with that latter part, but it happens and needs to be taken into consideration.

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | July 21, 2011 12:37 PM

So touching to see that all you manly whingers have found a mighty warrior-princess to nurse the thousand little hurts that those awful femtards have inflicted on your tender souls. Just stay here, ok?

Why do I always get the impression that feminists can be the most misogynistic and sexist peeps in the world when they face dissent from females?

Posted by: TylerD | July 21, 2011 12:51 PM

@403 (Raging Bee)
I said: The whole anti-Rebecca backlash flared up big time before Dawkins commented. It started when she attacked Step from the podium, where Stef was in no position to reply.

To which you replied: But that's not what Dawkins was talking about. Nor does it change the fact that it was Dawkins' words that brought so much attention to the matter.

Er, no. ERV's posts criticizing Watson pre-date the Dawkins comment. That is when the vituperating of Watson began big time (at ERV and elsewhere). And the Watsonophiles responded with accusations of misogyny to those who dared call out Watson for being petty and abusive. And all these people going rapeshit deflected the conversation back to Mr. Coffee.
And it was only at that point that Dawkins commented, adding lubricating oil to the cuntflagration.

Posted by: frank habets | July 21, 2011 12:55 PM

Abbie wrote:
-snip-

I also have no problem with people who prefer to keep things civil, and behave civilly in turn. However if that is your feeling, you will certainly wince reading ERV now and then.

The problem, is when people say out one side their mouths "DICK!" "FUCKER!" "FUCK YOU SIDEWAYS WITH A RUSTY KNIFE!!!", then turn around and get the vapors at 'Twatson'.

Abbie,

You're conflating two different concerns. Personally, I have no problem with colorful language. Having spent over 20 years serving the military, I can use the word "fuck" in the pluperfect subjunctive.

Fuck, dick, shit, twat, cunt, and other words were not what I was commenting about.

I was commenting that you can say what you want to say without engaging in namecalling. It has nothing to do with cuss words.

One can say "fuck" when the situation demands it (e.g. "my fucking car won't start") and that's not the same as a personal attack or namecalling (e.g. "he's a motherfucking asshole").

This is just an observation for the "echo chamber" participants on your blog. If the text on the screen comes off sounding like it's face-turning-red veins-popping angry, it's entirely possible that you've left the realm of the rational for the irrational.

If the only "response" that you have here is namecalling and anger, maybe you don't anything to say here and perhaps it's time to move on to another topic like evolutionary biology, anti-vaccine foolishness, etc.

Posted by: Steve Caldwell | July 21, 2011 1:02 PM

DavidByron,

I'm thinking more about the fact that they use they same kind of language that they consider awful and hateful toward women when an individual woman isn't on their side. It's hypocritical so act like such language is universally contemptible and then use it, on women, when they refuse to conform. It's much like blacks calling dissenters "house negroes" and "watermellon sucking Uncle Toms", in that it's equally hypocritical.

Posted by: TylerD | July 21, 2011 1:16 PM

"If the only "response" that you have here is namecalling and anger, maybe you don't anything to say here and perhaps it's time to move on to another topic like evolutionary biology, anti-vaccine foolishness, etc."

Well, quite. Did you read the series of posts about this on ERV? If you are under the impression that the only thing ERV had to say on the matter was namecalling and anger then you probably need to take a deep breath and read the actual articles again.

Posted by: Sab | July 21, 2011 1:20 PM

Can we stop pretending that Gerg Ldaen has made the rational feminist argument?

Gerg has been arguing that men should cross the road from unaccompanied women because of their gender.

That isn't equality, it's segregation.

Posted by: Peter | July 21, 2011 1:25 PM

@TylerD:
"I'm thinking more about the fact that they use they same kind of language that they consider awful and hateful toward women when an individual woman isn't on their side. It's hypocritical"

Yes and no. In my opinion they don't really care about women being called cunt or whatever. So I'd say they were lying when they made the claim that such name calling is sexist. That's why they use the same words so easily when attacking.

Is this hypocrisy?

My own view is that feminists are conservatives. by that I mean they fundamentally don't respect liberal concepts of reason and equality. To them tribalist "values" are key. The tribalist has a morality which says "anything I do, or a member of the tribe does, is good, anything an outsider does is bad even if it is the same thing."

For example many pro-life women get abortions. When asked to explain the apparent hypocrisy they explain "I'm not a slut like those women"

This ok for me, but not for ye attitude (ie inequality as a moral principle) is the hallmark of conservatism. Conservatives will say ANYTHING to win an argument because they have no actual moral principles save for one: loyalty to the tribe.

They will often even state contradictory arguments and be happy about it. The conclusion justifies the argument to a conservative (the ends justify the means). They fundamentally don't believe in making sense or being consistent or honest. Not when the tribe's identity is challenged. Loyalty trumps EVERYTHING else.

So it's not a mistake or moral flaw to them to argue against X and simultaneously do X. For a liberal such behaviour is a moral failing ("hypocrisy"). To a conservative? Just business as usual.

If you press them their answer always comes down to saying "THAT'S DIFFERENT"

And why? Why is it different? because when they do it, its always assumed to be for the good, for the best of motivations, and for the good of the tribe. When an outsider does it then their motivations are always potentially the very worst.

This is the heart of tribalism. It is the polar opposite of liberal equality.

Posted by: DavidByron | July 21, 2011 1:35 PM

Twatson fell down and threw a temper tantrum...

Twatson took to tantrum throwing, insolently insisting innocent interaction indicates injurious intentions?

I write software by trade, but wordsmithing is my true calling. ;p

Posted by: 0verlord | July 21, 2011 1:44 PM

@Tabby Lavalamp
I apologise for getting you confused with another feminist. You all have identical arguments. But I get confused between people easily I'm afraid. At least it means I concentrate on the debate not the person.