Another Skepchick War! Dr. Marty Klein crossed the line!

[Robert_S]

this is the anti-harassment policy:

Anti-Harassment Policy

SkeptiCamp Ohio is dedicated to providing a harassment-free conference experience for everyone regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion or beliefs in the Boogeyman. We do not tolerate harassment of conference participants in any form. Explicit sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue. While some important and relevant issues may touch upon sexual issues, please keep it professional and in an academic context. Conference participants violating these rules may be sanctioned or expelled from the conference [without a refund] at the discretion of the conference organizers.

Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention. Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately.

Exhibitors, sponsor or vendor booths, or similar activities are also subject to the anti-harassment policy. In particular, exhibitors should not use sexualized images, activities, or other material. Booth staff (including volunteers) should not use sexualized clothing/uniforms/costumes, or otherwise create a sexualized environment.

If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the conference organizers may take any action they deem appropriate, including warning the offender or expulsion from the conference [with no refund]. If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please contact a member of conference staff immediately. Conference staff can be identified by SkeptiCamp t-shirts.

Conference staff will be happy to help participants contact hotel/venue security or local law enforcement, provide escorts, or otherwise assist those experiencing harassment to feel safe for the duration of the conference. We value your attendance.

[Audley Strange]

Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to... ...religion, Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately.

The discordian in me wants to phone the Jehovah's Witnesses to get them to attend.

[hadespussercats]

I'm rather understanding of these alleged (I haven't seen them) extreme sexists responses. It's a knee-jerk reaction to a piece of splendid stupidity meant to convey virulent disagreement with the author and, probably, not the obvious connotation you'd pick up at first. A bit of intellectual legerdemain, if you will.

Very much...



How these turn into the wars they do, I never get. Except that it takes at least two to battle.

Yeah. I don't think right now that this was a case of harassment, but when was the last time you've seen someone suggest assrapeing a Christian for claiming that not being able to have "In God We Trust" on the money was oppression? There's something more going on here than our usual reaction to an overreaction.

Seriously you guys! Seth, our favorite chew-toy, has suggested assraping a fellow atheist and I'm the only one who bats an eye? WTF?

Not the only one.

[hadespussercats]

On the Skepchick thread? There were "hostile sexist reactions?" I didn't read any. I did see where any expression of dissent to the assertion that handing the card was a serious incident was squelched and silenced.

Did you actually read what you quoted?

I did. Can you direct me to the "hostile sexist" reactions? The Skepchicks don't even brook dissent, much less "hostile sexist."

Seth's reaction, right there.

As for the rest of your recent responses to my posts, I don't know why none of them indicate that I in fact agree that the card-giving was not harassment.

This is another example of how, when you break down posts to digest them piece by piece, you miss important chunks of content and/or meaning.

Oh, I misunderstood then. I referred to comments "on the Skepchick thread," which I intended to mean the thread on the Skepchick website.

I didn't miss that. In my last post in response to yours, I addressed the barmaid example, where you said that barmaids were not suing on claims that they could be. I merely wanted to explain where the law basically draws the line on that kind of "harassment."

Also, by addressing multiple points in a post at the end, instead of addressing points seriatim, you miss important content and meaning because points are glossed over, skipped, ignored, not addressed, not rebutted, etc.

I see Seth's comment now -- not sure how I missed it before -- it's rude and crude, yes.

I've been thinking lately that it might be more to the point not to have threads at all-- simply the most recent post, out-of-context, left for everyone to jump on before it too disappears...

No such thing as an all-purpose technique for navigating forum discussion, I guess!

[hadespussercats]

Yeah, it's rhetoric. An attempt at provocation that through overuse has become merely expected noise.

Also, I wasn't saying that the woman handed the card had a legitimate case for harassment, but I do think that there is a difference in perception about it from those involved where one side sees it as a social event and the others a professional event.

I think the Skepchicks might want to check with Dawkins, Harris, and folks who knew Hitchens, Michael Shermer and other prominent skeptics, if women ever made unsolicited come-ons and offers of sex to them. I can guarantee you that they have all had many...while they were "working" at conferences.

That hardly makes it good behavior, though.

You know, I agree with you that much of what I've seen coming from the Skepchick camp seems overblown, for lack of a better word.

But they're campaigning to change public perceptions of certain practices. Which often seems to require pushing the envelope, rhetoric-wise (something the Dawkins camp certainly understands, or ought to.)

As for the tit-for-tat angle, I'll point out that it's rare that a come-on from a woman makes a man feel threatened. And that none of these men have to battle against being seen as people who play on their sexuality to get ahead (whereas young women deal with that invalidation all the time.) So it's a different context.

Thirdly, I think it's important to reiterate that Klein took the grapevine version of Elyse's story, and published it without fact-checking. Then, instead of admitting and correcting his mistakes, he did a few unmarked edits and called her a "composite." Sloppy, manipulative opinion-mongering trying to pass as scholarship. Given that she was the "anonymous" subject of the piece, I can see why she's annoyed.

[maiforpeace]

I'm rather understanding of these alleged (I haven't seen them) extreme sexists responses. It's a knee-jerk reaction to a piece of splendid stupidity meant to convey virulent disagreement with the author and, probably, not the obvious connotation you'd pick up at first. A bit of intellectual legerdemain, if you will.

Very much...



How these turn into the wars they do, I never get. Except that it takes at least two to battle.

Yeah. I don't think right now that this was a case of harassment, but when was the last time you've seen someone suggest assrapeing a Christian for claiming that not being able to have "In God We Trust" on the money was oppression? There's something more going on here than our usual reaction to an overreaction.

Seriously you guys! Seth, our favorite chew-toy, has suggested assraping a fellow atheist and I'm the only one who bats an eye? WTF?

You have to read it first to bat an eye...I often skip over them.

[Robert_S]

I just couldn't let it pass without comment.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah, it's rhetoric. An attempt at provocation that through overuse has become merely expected noise.

Also, I wasn't saying that the woman handed the card had a legitimate case for harassment, but I do think that there is a difference in perception about it from those involved where one side sees it as a social event and the others a professional event.

I think the Skepchicks might want to check with Dawkins, Harris, and folks who knew Hitchens, Michael Shermer and other prominent skeptics, if women ever made unsolicited come-ons and offers of sex to them. I can guarantee you that they have all had many...while they were "working" at conferences.

That hardly makes it good behavior, though.

It hardly makes it bad behavior either, and it hardly makes it sexual harassment.

And, I think we should all admit that if Hitchens had complained when Rebecca Watson asked him to impregnate her so she could have his "love baby" - not too many people would have been outraged about how "inappropriate" it was, and it certainly would never be called "harassment" even if The Hitch was bothered by it.

You know, I agree with you that much of what I've seen coming from the Skepchick camp seems overblown, for lack of a better word.

But they're campaigning to change public perceptions of certain practices. Which often seems to require pushing the envelope, rhetoric-wise (something the Dawkins camp certainly understands, or ought to.)

Yes, but I oppose what they're doing, because part of what they're doing is trying to make it "guilt by accusation" and that a person is required to determine in advance whether a social overture would be welcomed before making the overture at all.

With the examples the Skepchicks give, if a man approaches a woman and says, "you know, I find you very interesting and attractive. I wonder if you might meet me at the bar to 'get to know each other better' [nudge and a wink -- say no more say no more]" that would be "harassment" or "inappropriate" unless he already knew she was interested. After all, it's a sexual overture, and she's entitled to her own boundaries.

As for the tit-for-tat angle, I'll point out that it's rare that a come-on from a woman makes a man feel threatened.

Sexist stereotype. It's the rare come on from a guy that makes a woman "feel THREATENED" too. And, in the instance regarding the swinger card, nobody said they "felt threatened" at all. In the instance we're discussing, the woman felt OFFENDED, and she objects, essentially, to the fact that these people had the temerity to think about her sexually in the first place.

And that none of these men have to battle against being seen as people who play on their sexuality to get ahead (whereas young women deal with that invalidation all the time.) So it's a different context.

So, then it's o.k. for women to hit on men, but not vice versa, unless the men are really really really sure that the woman approached "wants it?" That does appear to be the logical conclusion of your distinction.

And, remember, one of the swingers was a woman. So, is a woman hitting on a woman to be considered the same as a man hitting on a woman?

Thirdly, I think it's important to reiterate that Klein took the grapevine version of Elyse's story, and published it without fact-checking. Then, instead of admitting and correcting his mistakes, he did a few unmarked edits and called her a "composite." Sloppy, manipulative opinion-mongering trying to pass as scholarship. Given that she was the "anonymous" subject of the piece, I can see why she's annoyed.

Interestingly, the thing Elyse highlighted as something Klein "got wrong" was that supposedly he suggested that Elyse had indicated some sort of openness to the idea of the swinger card. However, I searched through Klein's article and he didn't make that claim at all. Elyse misattributes that to him, as far as I can tell.

What is it that Klein misrepresented?

And, being annoyed with Kleins opinion seems to me to be a wholly separate deal than being upset at being handed the card in the first place.

And, Elyse wasn't shy about mischaracterizations either. She referred in her article to the "naked picture" of the couple, which of course makes one think that there was tits and cock on display. Well, there were no naughty bits. In fact, if you blew the card up to bilboard size, it would likely be allowed on the side of the highway. It could certainly be published in a magazine, as far naughtier images are in newspapers and magazines on general sale at newstands everywhere.

[Coito ergo sum]

I just couldn't let it pass without comment.

Whether it sparks outrage generally depends on whose ox is being gored.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... in#p275252

[laklak]

This kind of thing irritates the shit out of me. Why doesn't anyone ever hand me a nekkid pic and an invite? What am I, chopped liver? It's fucking ageism, that's what.

[Coito ergo sum]

This kind of thing irritates the shit out of me. Why doesn't anyone ever hand me a nekkid pic and an invite? What am I, chopped liver? It's fucking ageism, that's what.

Maybe if you gave a good speech, Rebecca Watson would offer to let you inseminate her so she can bear your "love child." http://skepchick.org/2011/12/on-hitchen ... snotgreat/

Watson's little ditty about when she made the baseless assumption (never having even heard of Hitchens) that he would be open to the lewd suggestion that they ....gasp...have sex.... shows she is calling for special treatment. It's not that everyone should know that whoever they are speaking to welcomes sexual comments before those comments are made -- it's that MEN need to treat women like ladies. Women can do what they like.

[Coito ergo sum]

This panel concludes that panel speakers at a convention are ethically prohibited from hooking up with attendees at a conference.....

http://skepchick.org/2012/06/a-video-ch ... arassment/

LOL.

Watson, Skepchick, isn't on board with that. She thinks there should be hook-ups allowed....lol.... how much you wanna bet she's blown some guys at a conference at which she spoke...

EDIT: LOL, at the end at about 1hr:05 or 06, one of the speakers says that if you're organizing an event "you have to kiss our asses even more..." the panel erupts, and PZ Myers goes into damage control to walk that back, and make clear that "TAM doesn't have to kiss our asses, because we like TAM, and we want TAM to succeed...." LOL.

But, in humor, like wine, there is truth. Those fuckers do what their asses kissed.

DJ Grothe -- don't cave in. Don't give these fucking whiners the time of day.

[Coito ergo sum]

[Azathoth]

Stealing that

[Coito ergo sum]

The logo associated with SkepchickCON -- the Skepchick Convention.

Now....a couple of points. Here we have the group that has been primarily been in opposition to what they call the "objectification" of women. And, not only is the organization called "Skepchick" but their little logo includes the words "reality has never looked so good..." Clearly a double-entendre implying that the Skepchicks offer good looking chicks.

What do the looks have to do with it again?

And, I do find the timing interesting that the Skepchicks launched their war on TAM over the past six months or so, and they have their own convention starting on July 5.