How do we attract Skepchicks to sign up here?

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Well, I suppose if AronRa is suggesting that people ought to be prohibited from joking about women or men needing a good drunken rogering, or liking a good drunken rogering, I would disagree with him strongly. But, I don't think that he is referring to humor and poking fun.

Let's look, also, at the way the Skepchicks and Freethoughtbloggers act -- how about all the vitriol that comes from them? They don't seem to include that in the prohibited conduct, since it they implicitly claim the right to vitriolic attacks. Look at the image in my post above with the quote from Surly Amy -- she calls a specific female "troll-like." Is that any better? And, if you see the litany of go fuck yourselves, calling men "mansplainers" and name calling all over their blogs, plus statements about driving people out of the movement and making them pariahs.... I mean -- is mere vitriol what their rules are designed to prevent?

If suggesting that they are whiny bitches is beyond the pale, then why isn't "troll like" slurs also beyond the pale?

[Robert_S]

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.

So, one must not complain about big things if one also complains about little things?


So far we have three or four examples of Skepchicks complaining about seemingly trivial things over the past year. I don't subscribe entirely to their brand of feminism, but FFS it looks like we're calling 60 Minutes a trivial show because they had a couple minutes of Andy Roony on at the end.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, one must not complain about big things if one also complains about little things?

No, one must not use legitimate complaints to squelch freethought and criticism or parody. The Skepchicks and the FtB-ers and atheism plus use the terminology of "hatred and violence against women" to try to squelch jewelry parodies, t-shirts that say "I am not a skepchick" on it, moderate breaches of etiquette like being handed a swinger card, or dark and blue humor.

While they speak in generalities such as "violence and hatred against women and misogyny" the examples they cite of what they want stopped are ridiculously benign. Elevator come-ons for coffee? Fake jewelry parodies? t-shirts that say "I am not a skepchick?" These are things they are trying to put a stop to. Nobody disagrees with stopping threats against women (actually, people) -- but, they do disagree with stopping jokes, and raising minor breaches of etiquette to the status of sexual harassment.

So far we have three or four examples of Skepchicks complaining about seemingly trivial things over the past year. I don't subscribe entirely to their brand of feminism, but FFS it looks like we're calling 60 Minutes a trivial show because they had a couple minutes of Andy Roony on at the end.

Except that they haven't raised other examples, other than by mere generalities. These ARE the top Exhibits that they're introducing as evidence. That and twats posting snotty comments on youtube, which is definitely NOT limited to female youtubers. Look - where are the "threats?" We're told that women are not "safe" at TAM -- and what were the examples given? A British guy who had a touch too much wine stood a little to close to a Skepchick a couple of times. A guy in Ireland asked Rebecca Watson for coffee., That is what they tell us are the examples of threats at these conferences -- then go and make the claim that threats are rampant. So, if the threats are rampant, why don't we have any more egregious examples cited?

[Jason]

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 was deliberately making an inappropriate joke in an attempt to make a pastiche of the cliche of the 'chauvinist/misogynist atheist' which is one of the things these Skepchicks/Atheists+ are against - apparently it's endemic to the atheist 'community'. It was not made in earnest.

[Jason]

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.

Exactly. Equality, for them, means treating women as 'ladies' and men as 'brain-damaged ladies'. It is not acceptable to make such jokes in any company. Anything 'male' is misogynistic where 'male' is defined as 'older' 'white' 'heterosexual' 'men' but is regularly generalized to encompass most 'heterosexual' 'men' with ease (perhaps 'homosexual' 'men' as well, but I haven't seen any emphasis on that). I'm wondering if the goal of the Skepchicks is not the complete eradication of the 'masculine' through feminization. In other words 'It's OK to have a bob and two bits, but only if you realize you're a mentally and emotionally retarded physically deformed woman and act accordingly."

I'm not defending real misogyny or chauvinism at all. I'm saying that these 'feminists' are trivializing the real problems of misogyny, chauvinism, and even feminism itself, with their puerile whining about non-events. I also find their self-reinforcing method of dismissing criticism by reframing it as personal attacks, threats, and assaults, to be a vile abortion of what being a skeptic, or even just a rational thinking person, is about. They are a stain on any good cause they take up to stick on their banners. They are the anti-thought. They are an insidious digital encephalopathy - they swell the brain of anyone infected by their mendacious rubbish and leave nothing behind but a brainless homunculus under their sway. They are prions. They are a disease. The only good thing they've done is to self-identify so that they can be avoided and distanced.

[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.

I was deliberately making an inappropriate joke in an attempt to make a pastiche of the cliche of the 'chauvinist/misogynist atheist' which is one of the things these Skepchicks/Atheists+ are against - apparently it's endemic to the atheist 'community'. It was not made in earnest.

I get the joke (I think...because every time I think I get a joke, I wonder if I'm part of it). And, really as response to someone saying all men only respond to women as sexual objects that, "you need to get fucked" is both hilarious and atrocious. PF, you're a smart guy and I doubt you chose the things you say lightly, but this thread is in a publicly accessible area so I feel like not joking at the moment. I DO NOT agree with the wholesale attribution of anything approaching sexism with misogyny, and I don't believe that women need to be protected or given special treatment.

I do think however, the sexualization of women and the viewpoints that come with them is something that sucks. I know in discussions elsewhere that I, while having decided to go undercover as a male, have been met with way more consideration and respect than as a female (I also, turned down a job several years ago because of an idiot who referred to me soley as honey, that's a whole other story). Now, this was a screenwriting world and not atheist, but I submitted a few months apart a bit of dialogue, once as a female persona, and once as a mostly male, new persona. I got no response as the female except one rude comment about chick-flicks, as the dude I got several great bits of feedback, mostly all positive and some good advice, and an invite to another forum.

In the atheist/skeptic world (to which rationalia is my main exposure) I've found mostly fantastic, intelligent, considerate males who didn't give a second thought to me being a woman, and by that I mean they hung out with me, talked with me, and were all around great guys who seemed to consider my words worthwhile and never made me feel like I was an outsider of any kind. I know my husband has already been branded as a misogynistic rape enabler, but I'm pretty positive he's just the best dad/husband in the fuckin' universe...so that's confusing as well...

Yep, just typing out loud as I think this through....

[Robert_S]

Poe's law.

This whole thing reminds me of that Spike Lee film: Bamboozled.

[Jason]

I get the joke (I think...because every time I think I get a joke, I wonder if I'm part of it). And, really as response to someone saying all men only respond to women as sexual objects that, "you need to get fucked" is both hilarious and atrocious. PF, you're a smart guy and I doubt you chose the things you say lightly, but this thread is in a publicly accessible area so I feel like not joking at the moment.

Fair enough.

I DO NOT agree with the wholesale attribution of anything approaching sexism with misogyny, and I don't believe that women need to be protected or given special treatment.

I do think however, the sexualization of women and the viewpoints that come with them is something that sucks. I know in discussions elsewhere that I, while having decided to go undercover as a male, have been met with way more consideration and respect than as a female (I also, turned down a job several years ago because of an idiot who referred to me soley as honey, that's a whole other story). Now, this was a screenwriting world and not atheist, but I submitted a few months apart a bit of dialogue, once as a female persona, and once as a mostly male, new persona. I got no response as the female except one rude comment about chick-flicks, as the dude I got several great bits of feedback, mostly all positive and some good advice, and an invite to another forum.

In the atheist/skeptic world (to which rationalia is my main exposure) I've found mostly fantastic, intelligent, considerate males who didn't give a second thought to me being a woman, and by that I mean they hung out with me, talked with me, and were all around great guys who seemed to consider my words worthwhile and never made me feel like I was an outsider of any kind. I know my husband has already been branded as a misogynistic rape enabler, but I'm pretty positive he's just the best dad/husband in the fuckin' universe...so that's confusing as well...

Yep, just typing out loud as I think this through....

The objectification and differential treatment of women in society are two targets of feminism, and rightly so.

I'm convinced that creating a furore over being discreetly handed a card at a conference or being asked for coffee in an elevator in the name of feminism diminishes the weight of the real issues facing feminism. They've turned a call for equality into a call for privilege and over the most mundane and unremarkable issues (at least these are the ones that get the most press from them). They're also unapologetic for their obvious hypocrisy. They rally themselves against the 'evils' of 'privilege' while demanding it for themselves and decry the mockery they receive while reserving the right to mock whom they choose. They claim, in the name of 'social justice', to defend the inviolability of themselves and their peers through the violation of those outside their movement. They claim to be 'free thinkers' and 'skeptics' while attempting to enforce absolutes and edicts.

I could go on like this for a while, but suffice it to say that they're a blight of idiocy. They're not doing anyone any favours.

[hadespussercats]

Poe's law.

This whole thing reminds me of that Spike Lee film: Bamboozled.

The last two minutes of that film give me shivers. And nausea, and despair.

[Jason]

Poe's law.

This whole thing reminds me of that Spike Lee film: Bamboozled.

I don't understand your meaning. I read the synopsis of that movie but it didn't make anything clearer.

[Robert_S]

Poe's law.

This whole thing reminds me of that Spike Lee film: Bamboozled.

I don't understand your meaning. I read the synopsis of that movie but it didn't make anything clearer.

It was a large Poe that backfired horribly and not everyone was alive at the end of the film.

[Jason]

hmm.. I see. But I don't know in what sense you're drawing that parallel.

[Robert_S]

hmm.. I see. But I don't know in what sense you're drawing that parallel.

I don't think it is parallel, but it is sorta similar.

[Audley Strange]

I quite enjoyed Bamboozled.

You know what a little while ago I posted this thread.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=37572

However here is my latest thinking on it. I was always raised to think that treating women differently from men was sexist. To think that they were physically and mentally weaker than men was sexist, that women were just as capable as men.

Well that's horseshit isn't it? You see what I was complaining about was lack of civility towards woman. Why women? Why should they be treated differently? If gamer talk includes racist sexist and homophobic terms (and it does, even with friends tasteless jokes abound). So what I was really saying is "women are too mentally weak to deal with trolls"

That to me is deeply sexist, but it is essentially what Ape Lust is about no?

If we apply this further, then demanding special protections or pleading about abuse because you are a woman, is sexist. You are saying you are not capable of playing in the same field, you are saying that being offended (or let's be honest fauxffened) by language which is part and parcel of that scene and everyday life.

You don't get to demand equality and demand special treatment (privilege). You can't have it both ways, you can't demand to be treated as an equal and then whine that its too hard or that your feelings are not being validated.

To do so is to undermine the claimed fundamental point of Feminism (personally I think it's fundamental point got lost by the 20's but heh ho, some people obviously think universal is irrelevant to suffrage, you know, like Pankhurst.)

There are clearly some repugnant fuckers out there as evinced in the video I linked on that clip and the website that I linked to.

However repugnant fuckers are not gender specific.

So as a man I end up confused. I've been told by women that they are equal (well better really but...) but I'm also told that we must tiptoe around them and handle them like china dolls in case we upset them.

You know what? I think it's time to suggest that "feminist" women get their fucking house in order. There messaging and posturing is contradictory and is a hindrence to the social justice they demand and there whining about trivial shit IS an insult to real issues.

I don't care if some dumb bastard got upset by a t-shirt. To say I should take them seriously and not dismiss their whining by pointing out that young women are being murdered by their own parents is fucking insulting to me and SHOULD be even more fucking insulting to ANY woman out there who has a heart and a brain instead of a borderline personality disorder.

You either want to be treated as an equal or you want special treatment. You don't get to demand both and whine when people point out that is hypocrisy.


And also, Robert, you've never heard the phrase "worse things happen at sea"? If you're house is robbed and you're bitching about it to a friend it is not insulting to say "welll at least you only lost some stuff, in Rwanda they're losing their heads."

It is saying, think yourself lucky, get some perspective.

Your friends should say that.

[colubridae]

I quite enjoyed Bamboozled.

You know what a little while ago I posted this thread.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=37572

However here is my latest thinking on it. I was always raised to think that treating women differently from men was sexist. To think that they were physically and mentally weaker than men was sexist, that women were just as capable as men.

Well that's horseshit isn't it? You see what I was complaining about was lack of civility towards woman. Why women? Why should they be treated differently? If gamer talk includes racist sexist and homophobic terms (and it does, even with friends tasteless jokes abound). So what I was really saying is "women are too mentally weak to deal with trolls"

That to me is deeply sexist, but it is essentially what Ape Lust is about no?

If we apply this further, then demanding special protections or pleading about abuse because you are a woman, is sexist. You are saying you are not capable of playing in the same field, you are saying that being offended (or let's be honest fauxffened) by language which is part and parcel of that scene and everyday life.

You don't get to demand equality and demand special treatment (privilege). You can't have it both ways, you can't demand to be treated as an equal and then whine that its too hard or that your feelings are not being validated.

To do so is to undermine the claimed fundamental point of Feminism (personally I think it's fundamental point got lost by the 20's but heh ho, some people obviously think universal is irrelevant to suffrage, you know, like Pankhurst.)

There are clearly some repugnant fuckers out there as evinced in the video I linked on that clip and the website that I linked to.

However repugnant fuckers are not gender specific.

So as a man I end up confused. I've been told by women that they are equal (well better really but...) but I'm also told that we must tiptoe around them and handle them like china dolls in case we upset them.

You know what? I think it's time to suggest that "feminist" women get their fucking house in order. There messaging and posturing is contradictory and is a hindrence to the social justice they demand and there whining about trivial shit IS an insult to real issues.

I don't care if some dumb bastard got upset by a t-shirt. To say I should take them seriously and not dismiss their whining by pointing out that young women are being murdered by their own parents is fucking insulting to me and SHOULD be even more fucking insulting to ANY woman out there who has a heart and a brain instead of a borderline personality disorder.

You either want to be treated as an equal or you want special treatment. You don't get to demand both and whine when people point out that is hypocrisy.


And also, Robert, you've never heard the phrase "worse things happen at sea"? If you're house is robbed and you're bitching about it to a friend it is not insulting to say "welll at least you only lost some stuff, in Rwanda they're losing their heads."

It is saying, think yourself lucky, get some perspective.

Your friends should say that.

+1,000,000

Fuck I wsih I where so elokwent.