Another Skepchick War! Watson v. Grothe

[Hermit]

it is sad to see many [ Iincluding here ] using ad hom to
denegrate her : atheists are supposed to be rational
and logical :

When this Elevator Guy thing made ripples a few months ago, I finished up reading a lot of what Watson said as well as what was said about her. From the opinion I thus formed, I described her as a navel-gazing, airheaded egomaniac. ad hom? Yes. Denigratory? You bet. Irrational and illogical? I don't think so.

[Audley Strange]

If a man approaches a woman and she does not wish to entertain him and references
this in an obvious way then said man should just go away and leave said woman
alone : at that point it is not harassment : it becomes harassment if he does
not take note of what she has asked him to do and he persists in pestering
her : men should learn to respect women and leave them be when they
want to : this does not always translate well to reality but that is no
reason for not abiding by it however : as for women being made
to feel safe in public well that is a no brainer : though I would
extend it to all : everyone should be irrespective of gender

On the lady herself : all I know about Rebecca Watson is that she
is an atheist and feminist and has her own website and divides
opinion very easily : I do not judge one way or the other but
it is sad to see many [ Iincluding here ] using ad hom to
denegrate her : atheists are supposed to be rational
and logical : character assassination is not part of
that make up : all this bashing is not really at
all helping : you do have the freedom to say
what the hell you like and I defend to the
death your right to say it but it is not
very productive now : is it though

It is interesting you bring character assassination into it. Well Watson's Radical Adrophobe Orthodoxy has so far maligned people in the Skeptical community with far more worth and objectivity than her or her coterie of paranoid conspiracy theorists. Who seem dead set to try and undermine anyone in the movement that does not completely aquiesce with their ideology. Any one who does not is fair game and publicly bitched about.

She and her pals love to bitch about being called bitches and cunts etc, but then bandy about the terms like "rape enabler" or "Misogynist" at those who think they are exaggerating their claims. Femchick and her gang are fucking poison to the skeptical community, they wish to undermine it and replace it with some branch of their anti-patriarchal conspiracy nonsense. They dish it out and get all hurt and victimy when called on it and start pulling out little bits of anecdotal "evidence" at the drop of a hat to "prove" their point.

I think she and her gang are venomous and poisonous.

[Svartalf]

Poor bint, she just needs a high, hard stiff one.

You mean straight gin in a tall glass, of course...

if only because you surely can't expect a guy to want to stick his weiner in there do you?

[Hermit]

Poor bint, she just needs a high, hard stiff one.

How do you know?

Oh, right, Watson advertised the fact:

[Coito ergo sum]

DJ Grothe learns why you NEVER apologize for shit when you didn't really do something wrong.

Here is DJ Grothe's attempt to make the peace by falling on his face like a Muslim toward Mecca: http://skepchick.org/2012/06/why-i-wont ... ent-151261

He's groveling like he's in an audience with the Queen of the Byzantine Empire, begging to kiss Rebecca Watson's ring.

What happens? All the responses are diatribes of "not good enough, DJ! Not good e-nough!" And, the responses reiterate Watson's misconstruction of DJ Grothe's initial comments. He's left with basically a big fuck you from the Skepchicks. Anything but complete unquestioning acceptance of the "women are raped en masse by atheists/skeptics at conferences and nobody does anything about it" line is unacceptable. There can be no discussion on this point, because all such discussion is "gaslighting" and "ignoring women's experiences."

Let that be a lesson to you DJ. Don't buy into their feigned outrage again.

I read DJ Grothe's apology in detail and carefully. What jumped out at me was his reference to Rebecca Watson's allegation that she had been groped and touched REPEATEDLY -- apparently commonly - at TAM events (and apparently other atheist/skeptic events). He points out that he never knew that and that nobody, including Watson herself, ever told him or anyone else in the TAM organizing group that it happened. He leaves it there, hanging, like a huge rain cloud. He doesn't ask the next question that is dying to burst forth like Noah's deluge.

What is that question?

One word.

Why?

Rebecca, why didn't you report the instances of sexual assault, which apparently have happened repeatedly? Did you call the police? Did you notify the hotel authorities? Where did these incidents occur? When? Who committed these crimes? Why did you not "name names," as you once stated was an important thing to do?

I find it hard to believe that a human being would allow himself or herself to be subjected to repeated sexual assaults and not report the incidents to any authority. Was she afraid to report it? Why? She's not afraid to mention it now. She's a strong, brave woman, by all accounts, fighting the good fight for sexual equality and non-harassment and the safety of women. Why, then, would she not report flagrant, harassing, assaultive, sexually motivated, contacts by harassing men at the very events that she claims she want to make safer?

I can only speculate, since Watson has only so far spoken in generalities. One reason is that the incidents were not so blatant -- maybe someone touched her shoulder or forearm in a flirting manner. Could that be a "grope" to which she referred? I mean -- if someone groped her buttocks, genitals or breasts -- clearly, that would be a crime. Notify the hotel, call the police, and file a report against the offending man. At least get him kicked out of the convention, which would easily be done by reporting it to the event coordinator or the hotel manager.

So, what happened, Rebecca? As DJ Grothe wrote in his apology, people can't take action to address improper or illegal activities if they don't know about them. So, likely, the statute of limitations may not have run on some of the groping incidents, and the culprits can be pursued, or banned from events now. Need we ask why you, the brave and strong Rebecca Watson, champion of feminism, no shrinking violent when it comes to open discussion and disclosure of "the problem," and having no shame about "naming names," won't notify the event organizers now about the incidents you've been subjected to?

I think we all know why you won't, Ms. Watson.

[Coito ergo sum]

Watson, always classy, won't accept his apology --- not until he does some more genuflecting and groveling ---

I’ll just go on record as sharing the concerns of many of the other people replying to this: Stephanie Zvan’s points about this being a larger issue that frankly should be addressed through official JREF channels with an apology that includes the large number of women who DJ insulted; her point rebutting DJ’s assertion that no one has been working directly with organizations to develop policies (I can also be counted as a person who has been working behind the scenes on this); Tom and others’ point that you claim your words were misconstrued yet you provided no other possible intent that fits with what you said; and finally, the point that the TAM 9 anti-harassment policy is not posted anywhere prominent and so it isn’t even clear that this policy applies to TAM 10 and any future events the JREF might sponsor. Why?

These are just a few of the many valid concerns that others have raised that I’d like to see addressed as well.

If you want to make this go away, DJ Grothe, you will have to lick, not just kiss, her ass.

You would have been better off, DJ, sticking to your guns.

Now, you can't even say that you didn't intend to blame women in general. They won't let you have your own intent. They just tell you that you're lying about your intent, and that there is no other reasonable construction of what you wrote. You intended what they say you intended, and no apology is going to fix that.

One writer even said that if DJ Grothe didn't intend to insult all women, then he's such a poor writer he needs a PR person to review all his writing. http://skepchick.org/2012/06/why-i-wont ... ent-151261

This is the sentiment of almost all the Skepchicks posting in response to DJ Grothe's apology:

Rebecca, I don’t mean to put any undue demands on your time, and I totally respect your right not to get buried in this…but may I just say that if you were to do a full post deconstructing this apology and the reasons it is inadequate, I would positively squeeeaaaal with glee??

Yeah, Rebecca, grab his nuts and twist! We tolerate no errors in judgment! We tolerate no vagueness or mistaken phrasing in writing! We tolerate no dissent from our position! Tell him how inadequate his apology is! Let's all "squeal" with delight when we watch the man squirm!!!

[maiforpeace]

What exactly has you so obsessed with this woman, CES? Makes me wonder...

If a man approaches a woman and she does not wish to entertain him and references
this in an obvious way then said man should just go away and leave said woman
alone : at that point it is not harassment : it becomes harassment if he does
not take note of what she has asked him to do and he persists in pestering
her : men should learn to respect women and leave them be when they
want to : this does not always translate well to reality but that is no
reason for not abiding by it however : as for women being made
to feel safe in public well that is a no brainer : though I would
extend it to all : everyone should be irrespective of gender

On the lady herself : all I know about Rebecca Watson is that she
is an atheist and feminist and has her own website and divides
opinion very easily : I do not judge one way or the other but
it is sad to see many [ Iincluding here ] using ad hom to
denegrate her : atheists are supposed to be rational
and logical : character assassination is not part of
that make up : all this bashing is not really at
all helping : you do have the freedom to say
what the hell you like and I defend to the
death your right to say it but it is not
very productive now : is it though

Whatever others may think of her complaints, the fact is she is feeling harrassed, so, you can either discount her feelings as illegitimate, or you can show a little sensitivity and try to understand where she's coming from. As Ayaan points out, there are women who listen to what she writes and because of her comments won't attend conferences. Having heard many men complain, ad nauseum in some cases, that there are never enough women at atheist conventions seems to me many of you might try a different approach besides just putting her down and making fun of her. As it is I am quite turned off by some of the attitudes of others here, and it's a big enough turn off for me to not want to attend atheist conferences because I get sick of the arrogance of some atheists.

EDIT

Generally speaking, conventions and conferences are often where many attendees use them as an excuse to fuck around, go see whores...sheesh, the pole dancers and strip clubs are mobilizing as we speak for the Republican National Convention, anticipating a windfall in income and tips from all the attendees. So, is it possible that perhaps her claims are legitimate?

[Pappa]

Whatever others may think of her complaints, the fact is she is feeling harrassed, so, you can either discount her feelings as illegitimate, or you can show a little sensitivity and try to understand where she's coming from. As Ayaan points out, there are women who listen to what she writes and because of her comments won't attend conferences. Having heard many men complain, ad nauseum in some cases, that there are never enough women at atheist conventions seems to me many of you might try a different approach besides just putting her down and making fun of her. As it is I am quite turned off by some of the attitudes of others here, and it's a big enough turn off for me to not want to attend atheist conferences because I get sick of the arrogance of some atheists.

I haven't really followed the whole story well enough to comment on the specifics, but I have wondered about a few more general points.

Is a woman is feeling harassed by the behaviour of a man really enough to call it harassment? And... if a woman does feel harassed by unwanted advances (of whatever kind), does it necessarily mean those advances amount to sexual harassment? What kind of verbal advances or remarks constitute sexual harassment? Do they need to be blunt and uncouth or does an implied come on suffice?

[Audley Strange]

But Mai, as YOU point out it is Rebecca Watson that is making the claims and because of her comments women will not attend conferences. It is her nebulous tales or carnal depravity which have went incidently from one questionable approach in an elevator to an almost perpetual sea of sex crazed degenerates grabbing her inappropriately. As such can you not see that it could have been a factor in not inviting her to speak.

If you bring a friend to a party and they bring everyone down for their own amusement, then tell everyone your party was filled with perverts, publicly and loudly, would you invite them again?

Now, not that I'm going to say she is lying, but why did she not bring this to anyone's attention at the time of the Elevator Guy drama? Would it not have helped her case? As we've seen she's not fucking shy about naming names or calling people out when it suits her.

If, Ms Watson decided never to tell anyone, why is she playing the card now? If she decided that after being assaulted in such manner time and time again was not worth reporting to authorities, is it worth telling us? If she decided not to do anything about it, why is the onus on everyone else to fix this problem she has? So her feelings, legitimate as they may be to her, are inconsequential when it comes to her own hypocrisy regarding her central complaint.

It's kind of hard to show sensitivity to someone who shows none herself. Her manner of calling people out publicly, of calling for boycotts on people in the movement she doesn't like, her vilification of people in the movement and the conventions in the movement, her apparent lack of skepticism when it applies to her own extraordinary claims, make her feel as if she is not welcome?

Perhaps she's not?

[Edited to Add]

First of all I'd like to say that in the communities I inhabit, sexism is fucking appalling. So is racism and Homophobia. I'll open a new post...

[Coito ergo sum]

What exactly has you so obsessed with this woman, CES? Makes me wonder...

I'm not obsessed, but I do find these issues quite entertaining and humorous. It's like one thing after another. Moreover, I care about the Skeptic and the atheist movements, and this person is bad for both. I also am interested in the underlying issues -- feminism, harassment issues, discrimination, etc. -- and looking at how the Skepchicks view these kinds of issues is like looking into an alien world. Their opinions are emotion-driven, and often illogical, irrational, and hypocritical. Moreover, these are what one might call "hot button" issues, which get people fired up. I like those kinds of discussions, especially where one side is like the Skepchicks -- shrill and endeavoring to shout down their opposition. These kinds of threads are fun for me.

If a man approaches a woman and she does not wish to entertain him and references
this in an obvious way then said man should just go away and leave said woman
alone : at that point it is not harassment : it becomes harassment if he does
not take note of what she has asked him to do and he persists in pestering
her : men should learn to respect women and leave them be when they
want to : this does not always translate well to reality but that is no
reason for not abiding by it however : as for women being made
to feel safe in public well that is a no brainer : though I would
extend it to all : everyone should be irrespective of gender

On the lady herself : all I know about Rebecca Watson is that she
is an atheist and feminist and has her own website and divides
opinion very easily : I do not judge one way or the other but
it is sad to see many [ Iincluding here ] using ad hom to
denegrate her : atheists are supposed to be rational
and logical : character assassination is not part of
that make up : all this bashing is not really at
all helping : you do have the freedom to say
what the hell you like and I defend to the
death your right to say it but it is not
very productive now : is it though

Whatever others may think of her complaints, the fact is she is feeling harrassed, so, you can either discount her feelings as illegitimate, or you can show a little sensitivity and try to understand where she's coming from. As Ayaan points out, there are women who listen to what she writes and because of her comments won't attend conferences. Having heard many men complain, ad nauseum in some cases, that there are never enough women at atheist conventions seems to me many of you might try a different approach besides just putting her down and making fun of her. As it is I am quite turned off by some of the attitudes of others here, and it's a big enough turn off for me to not want to attend atheist conferences because I get sick of the arrogance of some atheists.

Yes, absolutely. But, remember, she didn't quit the TAM thing because she was "feeling harassed." She quit because DJ Grothe didn't know about the alleged harassment, and because he stated that some prominent skeptic women were spreading misinformation which was causing women to incorrectly conclude that TAM was a dangerous place for women. That's what got DJ Grothe into hot water, and that's what got Watson to quit TAM in protest and lambaste Grothe publicly.

I don't think it's improper to question whether Watson really is "feeling harassed." She made a pretty dramatic claim -- that at TAM events she has been repeatedly harassed and groped -- groped -- that's a sexual assault and crime -- and she never told TAM organizers about it. She prefers only to make general, nonspecific allegations now, long after the fact, and then berate DJ Grothe for not knowing about the incidents that she never reported. Similarly, she brings up another example of Ms. Miller, who says she suffered harassment from a drunk British man at TAM. She too never told anyone at TAM about it -- she says herself she never told anyone about the conduct. So, again, DJ Grothe states that in his experience, nobody had reported any such incident to TAM organizers. That is supposedly him, according to watson, discounting or ignoring the experiences of women.

And, at the heart of the whole dispute between Grothe and Watson was the fact that at the last TAM there was 50% women registrants. 1/2. For this year, however, the registrants were only 18% women. DJ Grothe mentioned that there were 0 incidents of women reporting being harassed at the last TAM, but he did point out that some prominent skeptics are beating the drum endlessly, ad nauseum as you put it, that it's not safe for women at TAM.

Is there room for discussion that perhaps, just perhaps, women stopped signing up because Watson and Co. are overblowing the risk to women in attending TAM?

[maiforpeace]

Whatever others may think of her complaints, the fact is she is feeling harrassed, so, you can either discount her feelings as illegitimate, or you can show a little sensitivity and try to understand where she's coming from. As Ayaan points out, there are women who listen to what she writes and because of her comments won't attend conferences. Having heard many men complain, ad nauseum in some cases, that there are never enough women at atheist conventions seems to me many of you might try a different approach besides just putting her down and making fun of her. As it is I am quite turned off by some of the attitudes of others here, and it's a big enough turn off for me to not want to attend atheist conferences because I get sick of the arrogance of some atheists.

I haven't really followed the whole story well enough to comment on the specifics, but I have wondered about a few more general points.

Is a woman is feeling harassed by the behaviour of a man really enough to call it harassment? And... if a woman does feel harassed by unwanted advances (of whatever kind), does it necessarily mean those advances amount to sexual harassment? What kind of verbal advances or remarks constitute sexual harassment? Do they need to be blunt and uncouth or does an implied come on suffice?

Good questions Pappa, and I don't think there is a black and white answer to this. People's sensitivities are different. My personal opinion is to be sensitive to the most sensitive. I mean, what does it hurt to ask people to be more sensitive and more aware of how they approach others? On the other hand if you show no sensitivity, the price paid will be less people wanting to attend events where they fear harrassment.

[Coito ergo sum]

EDIT

Generally speaking, conventions and conferences are often where many attendees use them as an excuse to fuck around, go see whores...sheesh, the pole dancers and strip clubs are mobilizing as we speak for the Republican National Convention, anticipating a windfall in income and tips from all the attendees. So, is it possible that perhaps her claims are legitimate?

Since when it is "harassment" for convention attendees to go to strip joints or hire whores, and how does the fact that at the Democratic and Republican conventions, there are whores a-plenty and strippers ready to give lap dances by the bucket-load relate to the present issue under discussion?

And, I think we need to clarify what you believe her "claims" are. She has made some claims about Grothe that are pretty stupid - like that he said that all women were to blame for harassment at TAM, and that talking about sexual harassment issues at conventions is the problem, not the harassment itself. That isn't what he said at all. It's her politicking that purposefully misconstrues what he said -- which was that some prominent skeptics (meaning Watson and others of her ilk) were whipping up a fear frenzy.

[Audley Strange]

I am not dismissing the obvious fact that when you put a big bunch of people together, especially if you give them access to alcohol, some wankers are going to make some people feel uncomfortable if not act like outright shits. This is a problem with human nature, not men and women, not the rationalist community (as an aside I'm defending it on a strictly hypothetical level, if it eats itself, I don't think it would matter much to me) and the expectation of it being a "safe place" is naive at best.

So how does one attempt tackle such problematic human nature in such a setting? By calling it to people's attention, yes certainly. However there is a difference between saying "You guys ALL fucking suck, do as I say!" to all and sundry and "Look we need to discuss this." to the people concerned.

Especially if you have a whole gamut of complaints and people to back you up. At best you look inelegant, at worst a petulant bully. Someone given prominence within a movement publicly undermining that movement and maligning other prominent figures within it,is, no matter how well intentioned or correct they might be, toxic to that movement.

[Coito ergo sum]

Whatever others may think of her complaints, the fact is she is feeling harrassed, so, you can either discount her feelings as illegitimate, or you can show a little sensitivity and try to understand where she's coming from. As Ayaan points out, there are women who listen to what she writes and because of her comments won't attend conferences. Having heard many men complain, ad nauseum in some cases, that there are never enough women at atheist conventions seems to me many of you might try a different approach besides just putting her down and making fun of her. As it is I am quite turned off by some of the attitudes of others here, and it's a big enough turn off for me to not want to attend atheist conferences because I get sick of the arrogance of some atheists.

I haven't really followed the whole story well enough to comment on the specifics, but I have wondered about a few more general points.

Is a woman is feeling harassed by the behaviour of a man really enough to call it harassment? And... if a woman does feel harassed by unwanted advances (of whatever kind), does it necessarily mean those advances amount to sexual harassment? What kind of verbal advances or remarks constitute sexual harassment? Do they need to be blunt and uncouth or does an implied come on suffice?

Good questions Pappa, and I don't think there is a black and white answer to this. People's sensitivities are different. My personal opinion is to be sensitive to the most sensitive. I mean, what does it hurt to ask people to be more sensitive and more aware of how they approach others? On the other hand if you show no sensitivity, the price paid will be less people wanting to attend events where they fear harrassment.

Do you include the religious in this sentiment? Religious folks who are offended by jokes and comments about religion?

If this is the general policy, then all conversations must remain the most milquetoast they can be. No cursing, swearing, talking about religion and politics, and no flirting at the bar with folks. After all, you can't know what their sensitivities are.

At bottom, we come to three things that control our behavior on this issue, and neither involves treating other people like they're children or have eggshell personalities. The first constraint is the law -- where conduct amounts to a crime, like unconsented touching, then that is a clear constraint on behavior. The second is culture -- we make certain assumptions based on what is culturally appropriate in a particular venue. I.e. -- it may not be appropriate for a woman to "come on" to a man during a formal presentation at TAM, but if the same woman and man are in the hotel bar at 10pm, then if she approaches him and tells him how sexy he is and asks if he'll come up to her room, that might not be inappropriate -- cultural context. If he "feels" harassed because of one approach by the woman -- well, that is his problem. The third factor is our knowledge of other people - where a person is a stranger, we can only follow items 1 (the law) and 2 (cultural context). However, if we KNOW a person has a particular sensitivity, or an eggshell constitution, then we most certainly, if we are polite people, would normally take that into consideration. That is how most people behave, I think.

The second bit, cultural context, seems to be the most important. Again, if one is at a convention, which is not just a business meeting but is also a social gathering, and time for people to enjoy themselves and meet other like-minded individuals, then here and there women and men are going to approach each other and be sexually attracted to each other.

Also, if someone wanted a sure fire way to make sure nobody wants to come to a weekend convention at a hotel in a far away city -- make sure you suck all the social fun out of it. Make sure that we all have to hang out in the hotel bar and talk like we're regulated by the FCC. Guaranteed, people will find other places to go.

[Pappa]

Whatever others may think of her complaints, the fact is she is feeling harrassed, so, you can either discount her feelings as illegitimate, or you can show a little sensitivity and try to understand where she's coming from. As Ayaan points out, there are women who listen to what she writes and because of her comments won't attend conferences. Having heard many men complain, ad nauseum in some cases, that there are never enough women at atheist conventions seems to me many of you might try a different approach besides just putting her down and making fun of her. As it is I am quite turned off by some of the attitudes of others here, and it's a big enough turn off for me to not want to attend atheist conferences because I get sick of the arrogance of some atheists.

I haven't really followed the whole story well enough to comment on the specifics, but I have wondered about a few more general points.

Is a woman is feeling harassed by the behaviour of a man really enough to call it harassment? And... if a woman does feel harassed by unwanted advances (of whatever kind), does it necessarily mean those advances amount to sexual harassment? What kind of verbal advances or remarks constitute sexual harassment? Do they need to be blunt and uncouth or does an implied come on suffice?

Good questions Pappa, and I don't think there is a black and white answer to this. People's sensitivities are different. My personal opinion is to be sensitive to the most sensitive. I mean, what does it hurt to ask people to be more sensitive and more aware of how they approach others? On the other hand if you show no sensitivity, the price paid will be less people wanting to attend events where they fear harrassment.

I agree up to a point, but some people can feel unnecessarily harassed over trivial things or things that you may not expect them to feel harassed about.

Just using a non-gratuitous come-on as a good example. Some women would actively welcome it, some would welcome it a little and feel positive about it, some would feel neutral, some would roll their eyes but brush it off, some would find it an annoyance and yet others might even consider it to be sexual harassment (even if there was no overt sexual element). It's far from easy to predict how someone would react, but in most situations I don't think a simple come-on to someone you might like is unreasonable. I mean, everyone wonders about those times they didn't pluck up the courage to ask, right? I think it's more unreasonable to treat that kind of situation as harassment even if some women may consider it to be unwelcome.

I'm not suggesting Skepchick's situations were specifically like this, as I've said I haven't followed the events all that closely.... far too tl:dr for me. But, in reading her statement that was quoted above about why she won't be attending this year, I did wonder if there's a real problem with interpretation going on. At one point she mentions harassment, and I noticed she didn't use the phrase "sexual harassment", but much of the implication is that Groethe has been lax dealing with an avalanche of sexual harassment. Could it be that a bunch of stuff is being bundled together in Skepchick's criticism? Everything from the kind of sexual harassment that should have been reported to the police to unwelcome but polite advances in an environment that she may feel is inappropriate but others may think is perfectly acceptable.... and from Groethe's perspective, this great unlabeled mass seems overwhelmingly impossible because of the implication that it is all illegal sexual harassment. Aside from the specifics of Skepchick vs. Groethe, that misunderstanding might be pretty widespread more generally too.