How do we attract Skepchicks to sign up here?

[Jason]

Okay. I am only going to ask this once because l'il old me was absent when all this hoohah with these skepchick women started. Frankly, I'm too idle to trawl through past posts and franklier, I am getting irritated at reading the flipping word. So, who the fuck are they, what do they do and why are they a cause of a) derision and b) derision? I demand you tell me right now. Or else.

A bunch of sexually repressed whiny little bitches that really only want a good drunken rogering?

That's not a fair assessment though, because a good drunken rogering is something every woman wants.

I've got two bottles of champagne and a funnel.

[Kristie]

Okay. I am only going to ask this once because l'il old me was absent when all this hoohah with these skepchick women started. Frankly, I'm too idle to trawl through past posts and franklier, I am getting irritated at reading the flipping word. So, who the fuck are they, what do they do and why are they a cause of a) derision and b) derision? I demand you tell me right now. Or else.

A bunch of sexually repressed whiny little bitches that really only want a good drunken rogering?

That's not a fair assessment though, because a good drunken rogering is something every woman wants.

I've got two bottles of champagne and a funnel.

[charlou]

I've been sucked in, and I will look back on all this and be ashamed. But until then:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY2itRcg ... e=youtu.be[/youtube]

Okay, try this instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY2itRcg ... e=youtu.be

Sean, is that you?


(Let's do tea. )

[rachelbean]

I'm fairly sure that someone can have what I consider obnoxious opinions and it not be because they really need to get fucked, not just that, but saying that in response to them just makes them sound more like they have a point.

As far as every woman wanting a drunk rogering, I'm positive there are lots of women who want neither the drunk nor the rogering part as much as it's a pastime I enjoy myself.

[JimC]

"I'm too drunk, Roger, so kindly fuck off..."

[Robert_S]

I'm fairly sure that someone can have what I consider obnoxious opinions and it not be because they really need to get fucked, not just that, but saying that in response to them just makes them sound more like they have a point.

This! Very much this!!!

Using stereotypes to mock people complaining about (among other things) stereotypes is a losing proposition.













Only a sexist tool of the patriarchy would do such a thing.

[Kristie]

I'm fairly sure that someone can have what I consider obnoxious opinions and it not be because they really need to get fucked, not just that, but saying that in response to them just makes them sound more like they have a point.

As far as every woman wanting a drunk rogering, I'm positive there are lots of women who want neither the drunk nor the rogering part as much as it's a pastime I enjoy myself.

I'm fairly sure we're all joking in this thread.



at least the last couple pages, anyway!

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm fairly sure that someone can have what I consider obnoxious opinions and it not be because they really need to get fucked, not just that, but saying that in response to them just makes them sound more like they have a point.

I agree with this. This is what they're on about sometimes. Every jerk on youtube who says "you just need to get laid..." is what they claim to be the horrid sexual harassment, or examples thereof. But, what I think they miss is that this is just a profane way of saying "you need to lighten up" or "you've got a stick up your butt." That sort of thing.

I think that similar things are said to guys all the time -- not exactly the same thing, although I have heard in some contexts men being told "dude, you just need to get laid, or something." Or, like the old joke that the Muslim men need to be sent plane loads of beer and hookers and they'd not be so uptight.

Where the Skepchicks get it wrong is in thinking that women are singled out or preferred in terms of having rude things said to and about them. They laugh, for example, at the hate mail that Richard Dawkins received, but the stuff they receive is beyond the pale. What it ends up amounting to is the Skepchicks have, like, woken up one day and realized that the sexual revolution and women's liberation also means that the old ideas of "treating you like a lady" and "don't say that in mixed company..." also go away.

[Sean Hayden]

I've been sucked in, and I will look back on all this and be ashamed. But until then:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY2itRcg ... e=youtu.be[/youtube]

Okay, try this instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY2itRcg ... e=youtu.be

Sean, is that you?


(Let's do tea. )

No.








Can we still do tea?

[Coito ergo sum]

[Coito ergo sum]

[Audley Strange]

I've got it!

Start a "LOL, White guys!" thread. That'll bring them out of the wallflower garden.

[Coito ergo sum]

AronRa has joined the chorus of prominent white guys speaking out against "hatred directed at women." http://skepchick.org/2012/08/speaking-o ... n-aron-ra/

I respect AronRa tremendously. I read his piece carefully.

I agree with every word of it. It is exclusively focused on things like threats and extreme vitriol.

And, it illustrates the extreme disconnect in the conversation here. Nobody around here is advocating such things.

The problem is that things like "fake jewelry," "invites for coffee in an elevator," "a funny I am not a skepchick t-shirt" and a card handed to someone by a swinger --- these things are included by the Skepchicks and their ilk as among the things that are unacceptable threats, hatred, and vitriol against women.

That is the crux of this whole debate. Not everything Surly Amy complains about is "hate" or "vitriol" or "unacceptable." Elyse getting a card handed to her by a male/female swinger couple is not "hatred against women." Rebecca Watson being asked for coffee in a hotel room is not "hatred against women." None of the things that everyone was been suggesting the Skepchicks stop whining about has anything at all to do with violence against women, hatred of women or other vitriol directed against women.

This is common in almost all of the Skepchick "speaking out against hatred directed at women" pieces. They all refer to serious stuff like threats of violence, vitriolic hatred, and extreme, scary stuff. Yet the high profile examples the Skepchick whine about are milquetoast platitudes and paltry little discourtesies.

[Robert_S]

They don't mention "feminism", "violence against women" or "misogyny" on the front page.

Perhaps the loudest voices aren't the only ones heard.

[MiM]

I think you missed some of the point, Coito

AronRa:

On one level, we’re talking about anonymous internet nobodies spewing meaningless vitriol in an attempt to demean or belittle anyone not hiding behind the facades of silly secret names. How is that excusable? You may say, “Haters gonna hate; don’t feed the trolls”, and yeah, I get that. But are you telling me this is acceptable? Because it sounds like you’re telling me to accept it. It doesn’t matter what the medium is, does it? Does the excuse that they’re not really serious somehow make that OK? How could it?

And only looking only at posts made in this thread today, there was someone describing SkepChicks as "A bunch of sexually repressed whiny little bitches that really only want a good drunken rogering?", and when that was countered, someone else belittled it with "I'm fairly sure we're all joking in this thread.". Isn't this exactly the kind of "meaningless vitriol... to demean and belittle" and "they're not really serious" mentality that AronRa speaks up against? and rightly so, in my opinion.

=============
And the fact that AronRa continued his post with the rethoric question " Is it ever acceptable for anyone to tell someone else that they should be raped?", and the post here didn't exactly condone raping, doesn't change the basic issue, at least not in my mind.