How do we attract Skepchicks to sign up here?

[hadespussercats]

I wish that there were more places where dissent wasn't seen to be the same as hatred

I wish that there were only places where dissent wasn't seen to be the same as hatred

That too.

[Graculus]

The ones most like to not listen to opposing viewpoints are Skepchicks. If they joined here, you'd find their viewpoints freely expressed, but they would accuse this forum of being misogynistic for allowing people to "gaslight" them by telling them that they're wrong and explaining why...

Sorry, I've been busy gaming, & trying to see how many different languages I can get hatemail in. (5 so far!)

I've been reading the thread, & I do see 'gaslighting'.... complete misrepresentations & removal of context by many (not all!) posters. For example, McGrew

"You know what would advance this conversation? An actual case of sexual harassment at an atheist conference. In the absence of that, there really isn't much to talk about, is there?"

who, after being given several examples on that thread, goes on to re-define "harrassment" as "felony-level assault reported to the police". We're into "legitimate rape territory" there, McGrew.

The continual misrepresentation of the positions of A+, FtB & Skepchicks, both casually & by stripping everything resembling context & meaning from what has been said.

If people levelled the same TYPE & AMOUNT of vitriol against male bloggers then it would be asking for special treatment. But that isn't what happened, is it? What happened is that what Rebecca said, & what others subsequently said, made some folks here uncomfortable. Instead of examing why, those people went into attack mode... & yet they accuse the Skepchicks of having overly delicate feelings? You (generic, not personal) create your own "safe space", yet mock others for doing the same?

There's so much to unpack....

[Coito ergo sum]

Please identify the post wherein someone "redefined harassment as felony level assault reported to the police..."

I haven't seen it.

What people have done is scoff at swinger cards and "I am not a skepchick" t-shirts and say that THOSE are not examples of harassment, and that we haven't really seen much, if any, examples of what would rise to the level of harassment at atheist conferences (at least not reported).

There is a big spectrum of behavior between "felony assault" and "I am not a skepchick t-shirt." Part of that spectrum is sexual harassment when it is conduct of a sexual nature which is unwelcome and pervasive.

What we have here is a major difference of opinion, though, as to what constitutes a legitimate gripe. On the AtheismPlus and Skepchick side, it seems that any complaint that a woman is upset by something is enough to consider it harassing, because she can set her own personal boundaries. We've heard many times that it is not for us to question what makes a woman feel uncomfortable. If she says she's uncomfortable, then stop doing or saying what you're doing or saying.

People here fundamentally disagree with that line of reasoning, because many of us are of the opinion that people are allowed to say things which are offensive to other people, and that not every slight, breach of etiquette, or untoward/profane comment is going to be deemed harassment.

That is not to say harassment does not exist. But, I will not agree to consider "fake jewelry," swinger cards, "I am not a skepchick" t-shirts, and 4am overtures for coffee in an elevator, etc., are "harassment." They may be rude. They may be obnoxious. But, they are not harassment no matter how offended a person is by them.

When people say they want to see a legitimate case of harassment, they want to see something like - a guy hits on a woman and when she says no, he keeps trying, bothers her and follows her and although she has communicated her desire to be left alone he won't leave her alone. That kind of example is not a felony assault, but would certainly fit what most people would view as repeated unwanted sexual attention which is what most people would view as potentially harassing if unwelcome. Of all the examples we've been given over the last year and 1/2 since elevatorgate, we haven't seen one remotely like that. All we've seen are petty discourtesies blown out of proportion.

Another example would be unwanted physical contact, where a man touches a woman inappropriately. I am sure there are many other examples, and I can't be asked to recite every kind of possible sexual harassment.

But, please, don't come crying to the world of atheism with the complaint that someone wore a t-shirt that you don't like (collective you) and claim that there ought to be a rule against it. Many of us don't agree with that. And, that's what people are saying here.

Nobody has said that the only thing that amounts to harassment is felony assault. To that extent, you have created a strawman yourself. Do you take it back, or will you link to the offending post?

[Audley Strange]

I've been reading the thread, & I do see 'gaslighting'.... complete misrepresentations & removal of context by many (not all!) posters. For example, McGrew

"You know what would advance this conversation? An actual case of sexual harassment at an atheist conference. In the absence of that, there really isn't much to talk about, is there?"

who, after being given several examples on that thread, goes on to re-define "harrassment" as "felony-level assault reported to the police". We're into "legitimate rape territory" there, McGrew.

The continual misrepresentation of the positions of A+, FtB & Skepchicks, both casually & by stripping everything resembling context & meaning from what has been said.

If people levelled the same TYPE & AMOUNT of vitriol against male bloggers then it would be asking for special treatment. But that isn't what happened, is it? What happened is that what Rebecca said, & what others subsequently said, made some folks here uncomfortable. Instead of examing why, those people went into attack mode... & yet they accuse the Skepchicks of having overly delicate feelings? You (generic, not personal) create your own "safe space", yet mock others for doing the same?

There's so much to unpack....

Enjoying your hatemail are you? You seem proud of it.

Several examples does not constitute an endemic problem. Unreported cases of harassment of females by those females perpetuates harrassment. Complaining about some mysterious weirdo in an elevator asking you for a coffee as being sexualisation is arrogant and presumptuous. Claiming that somehow this put you in fear of being raped is a ludicrous exaggeration. Using your position as a speaker to call out people who disagreed (women no less) that your ludicrous exaggeration was ridiculous knowing they had no right to respond there and then is exploitation.

Complaints that one is out of order for behaving in such a way is not "blaming the victim" since there was no form of crime or assault that necessitated a victim.

Okay. Now redefining Misogyny as vague questions about feminist ideology is gaslighting.

Redefining a clumsy attempt to get to know someone better as potential rape is gaslighting.

Redefining atheism as a movement for women's issues and as a support group for androphobic neurotics is gaslighting.

Redefining privilege as the excuse for you being a failure is gaslighting.

Have FtB and A+ received nasty invective? Yes. However they have not been shy in editing and deleting that which does not agree with their narrative or allowing a cacophony of trolls act like trolls themselves, so tough shit. Don't like it, don't dish it out. Don't allow people on your comments to say things like "I hope you die in a fire" if you are then going to post "evidence" of misogyny as someone telling you to "die in a fire." It's laughable.

The difference is that Male Bloggers and Female bloggers get tonnes of vitriol all the time. It is the nature of the electronic environment. However most are adult enough and stable enough to accept this as part of the environment and not project it as some conspiracy to crush the feminine.

This is why people went into attack mode. Ideology is not the domain of atheism. If you want to engage in vile invective be prepared to receive it or fuck off because you are a hypocrite. FtB skepchicks and A+ see this as a hatred of women. They are wrong. It is a disgust at them, only them and the evidence that they are claiming is widespread misogynist behaviour against women in this community is false. They stopped talking about what people in the networks were in the networks for and were shouted down and began self segregation before they were kicked out.

This is NOT about hatred of women. It is about rejection of the deranged voices that are determined to speak on our behalf. It is frustrations that what are, seemingly perceptive minds are bogged down in this nonsense ideology and it is anger that anyone who disagrees or questions is treated to abuse, but they demand they are treated with respect and civility which they have done little to deserve.

TL;DR?

We don't hate women, we are disgusted by FtB/SkepChicks/A+ lack of skepticism and reasoning. Call it Feminist Thought Blogs Feminism Junior and Femchick and you'd never hear from most of us again.

[Graculus]

Please identify the post wherein someone "redefined harassment as felony level assault reported to the police..."

I haven't seen it.

Take that up with McGrew, who didn't link to the forum in question.

What people have done is scoff at swinger cards and "I am not a skepchick" t-shirts and say that THOSE are not examples of harassment, and that we haven't really seen much, if any, examples of what would rise to the level of harassment at atheist conferences (at least not reported).?

Nothing is harassment if you de-contextualize it. The Westboro Baptist Chuch doesn't harass people, it's just a church meeting.

There is a big spectrum of behavior between "felony assault" and "I am not a skepchick t-shirt." Part of that spectrum is sexual harassment when it is conduct of a sexual nature which is unwelcome and pervasive.

What we have here is a major difference of opinion, though, as to what constitutes a legitimate gripe. On the AtheismPlus and Skepchick side, it seems that any complaint that a woman is upset by something is enough to consider it harassing, because she can set her own personal boundaries. We've heard many times that it is not for us to question what makes a woman feel uncomfortable. If she says she's uncomfortable, then stop doing or saying what you're doing or saying.

The thing with the shirt & the jewelry was NEVER called "sexual harassment", by anyone. It was, IN CONTEXT, the type of thing that the vast majority of porfessional conventions define as "harassment"... the thing with the card was in violation of the con's own harassment policy. So this is not about feelings. In fact, most professional confrences have a similar policy as Ratz.. no personal attacks of attendees. The shirt & jewelry were personal attacks on attendees, & were part of a pattern.

People here fundamentally disagree with that line of reasoning, because many of us are of the opinion that people are allowed to say things which are offensive to other people, and that not every slight, breach of etiquette, or untoward/profane comment is going to be deemed harassment.

Guess what, no one claims that.. it's part of the misrepresentation I'm talking about. AKA, strawmanning. Nor does your right to free speech mean that your speech is immune from cricitism & someone criticising your speech is not them claiming you harassed them.

When people say they want to see a legitimate case of harassment, they want to see something like - a guy hits on a woman and when she says no, he keeps trying, bothers her and follows her and although she has communicated her desire to be left alone he won't leave her alone. That kind of example is not a felony assault, but would certainly fit what most people would view as repeated unwanted sexual attention which is what most people would view as potentially harassing if unwelcome. Of all the examples we've been given over the last year and 1/2 since elevatorgate, we haven't seen one remotely like that. All we've seen are petty discourtesies blown out of proportion.

You're joking? ELEVATOR GUY heard Rebecca say that she wasn't interested, then he followed into an enclosed space with no immediate exit to "interest" her. CREEPY. What rises above "petty discourtesy"? The guy licking unconsenting necks? The guy with the upskirt camera? Repeated propositioning of people in a non-social setting? All those things that never happened because someone says they never happened, even though they were documented.

Nobody has said that the only thing that amounts to harassment is felony assault. To that extent, you have created a strawman yourself. Do you take it back, or will you link to the offending post?

Oh, I've seen it said. In the thread McGrew won't link to.

AND.. I'd be really interested in links the corrective rape jokes Ratz made about the people threatening to rape & kill the Skepchicks. Because the takeaway I'm getting is the threats & hating don't matter, but someone speaking up about the threats & hating is EEEEeeeeeeevvvviiiiiiil.

[Graculus]

Enjoying your hatemail are you? You seem proud of it.

It means I'm winning

Okay. Now redefining Misogyny as vague questions about feminist ideology is gaslighting.

Redefining a clumsy attempt to get to know someone better as potential rape is gaslighting.

Redefining atheism as a movement for women's issues and as a support group for androphobic neurotics is gaslighting.

Redefining privilege as the excuse for you being a failure is gaslighting.

gaslighting. I do not think that word means what you think it means
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

strawman much?

We don't hate women.

you just hate it when women don't agree with you on the awesomeness of the status quo?

[hadespussercats]

Enjoying your hatemail are you? You seem proud of it.

It means I'm winning

Okay. Now redefining Misogyny as vague questions about feminist ideology is gaslighting.

Redefining a clumsy attempt to get to know someone better as potential rape is gaslighting.

Redefining atheism as a movement for women's issues and as a support group for androphobic neurotics is gaslighting.

Redefining privilege as the excuse for you being a failure is gaslighting.

gaslighting. I do not think that word means what you think it means
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

strawman much?

We don't hate women.

you just hate it when women don't agree with you on the awesomeness of the status quo?

Which women agree or disagree, and where?

We're not the borg.

[Thinking Aloud]

Which women agree or disagree, and where?

We're not the borg.

Yet.

[Coito ergo sum]

Please identify the post wherein someone "redefined harassment as felony level assault reported to the police..."

I haven't seen it.

Take that up with McGrew, who didn't link to the forum in question.

Well, you were referring to this forum, I thought. I am sure some idiot somewhere redefined it as limited to being hit over the head by a phallic symbol or something, but if it didn't occur here, then it has nothing to do with this thread, which is what you were referring to.

And, you made the assertion. You can either back it up or not. I'm not "taking it up" with anyone. If someone here made that redefinition, then prove it.

What people have done is scoff at swinger cards and "I am not a skepchick" t-shirts and say that THOSE are not examples of harassment, and that we haven't really seen much, if any, examples of what would rise to the level of harassment at atheist conferences (at least not reported).?

Nothing is harassment if you de-contextualize it. The Westboro Baptist Chuch doesn't harass people, it's just a church meeting.

Right. They don't harass people, even if other people feel harassed by them, which is why the supreme Court unanimously, or nearly unanimously upheld their right to hold signs that say "god hates fags" near funerals.

In the context of the incidents as alleged by the complaining persons -- like Surly Amy and the offending t-shirt -- in the context as described by her - it was not harassment, sexual or otherwise. Period. And, parody jewelry is not harassment. And, her demand that there be rules that would prohibit such t-shirts and jewelry is nonsense, and deserves to be opposed. That is what people are opposing here, and they have not tried to redefine harassment as limited to felonious assaults. That's your straw man.

There is a big spectrum of behavior between "felony assault" and "I am not a skepchick t-shirt." Part of that spectrum is sexual harassment when it is conduct of a sexual nature which is unwelcome and pervasive.

What we have here is a major difference of opinion, though, as to what constitutes a legitimate gripe. On the AtheismPlus and Skepchick side, it seems that any complaint that a woman is upset by something is enough to consider it harassing, because she can set her own personal boundaries. We've heard many times that it is not for us to question what makes a woman feel uncomfortable. If she says she's uncomfortable, then stop doing or saying what you're doing or saying.

The thing with the shirt & the jewelry was NEVER called "sexual harassment", by anyone. It was, IN CONTEXT, the type of thing that the vast majority of porfessional conventions define as "harassment"... the thing with the card was in violation of the con's own harassment policy. So this is not about feelings. In fact, most professional confrences have a similar policy as Ratz.. no personal attacks of attendees. The shirt & jewelry were personal attacks on attendees, & were part of a pattern.

Bull -- it was no type of "harassment" ever. If that was harassment, then wearing a t-shirt calling the Christian or Muslim God "imaginary" would be "harassment," too.

The card did not violate the con's harassment policy. And, even if it did, then Amy should have gone to the conference organizers and reported it. It doesn't require some crusade to get the rest of the "movement" involved to stop dopey swingers from handing out another card, as if she was harmed in any way by it.

People here fundamentally disagree with that line of reasoning, because many of us are of the opinion that people are allowed to say things which are offensive to other people, and that not every slight, breach of etiquette, or untoward/profane comment is going to be deemed harassment.

Guess what, no one claims that.. it's part of the misrepresentation I'm talking about. AKA, strawmanning. Nor does your right to free speech mean that your speech is immune from cricitism & someone criticising your speech is not them claiming you harassed them.

It is just this kind of immunity from criticism that Skepchicks seek. I saw it myself over at the Skepchick blog. They SAY that mere criticism is allowed, but then when people actually do engage in some sort of debate, they get easily banned, even if they don't personally attack anyone, call anyone any names, etc. Merely pursuing a line of argument that the Skepchicks think has already been refuted is enough to be banned. I've seen it happen to more than one person.

And, you SAY "no one claims that" -- but, then you assert that fucking t-shirt that says "I am not a skepchick" is harassment. Can you not see that if a t-shirt like that can be called "harassment" then almost any offensive statement -- heck an "I am not a Christian" t-shirt could cause the same discomfort to a religious person as the t-shirt supposedly did to Surly Amy.

You can't reasonably claim that offensive statements are allowed, and then claim that the "i am not a skepchick" t-shirt goes beyond what is acceptable. Well you can, but it doesn't make sense to huge swaths of people out there.

And, then there is the Richard Carrier theory of "well ridicule and offense is fine, as long as it's properly directed at the right people..." - he wrote a blog entry saying just that -- it amounted to ridicule of Atheism+ positions as being wrong, because Atheism+ holds the good and right positions. Ridicule of, say, the religious is actually a moral imperative because they are assholes.

If that kind of logic works for you -- and it is precisely what carrier argued -- then absolutely count me out.

When people say they want to see a legitimate case of harassment, they want to see something like - a guy hits on a woman and when she says no, he keeps trying, bothers her and follows her and although she has communicated her desire to be left alone he won't leave her alone. That kind of example is not a felony assault, but would certainly fit what most people would view as repeated unwanted sexual attention which is what most people would view as potentially harassing if unwelcome. Of all the examples we've been given over the last year and 1/2 since elevatorgate, we haven't seen one remotely like that. All we've seen are petty discourtesies blown out of proportion.

You're joking? ELEVATOR GUY heard Rebecca say that she wasn't interested, then he followed into an enclosed space with no immediate exit to "interest" her. CREEPY.

She actually never said she wasn't interested -- I listened to the whole speech she did in Ireland, and she talked about email harassment and threats. She never once said she didn't want to be asked for coffee or similar overtures. There was no reason to think she might not like the company of a man. Moreover, Watson herself said that this guy was around, but had not interacted with her AT ALL until the question in the elevator. Which means that if she had said something in private conversations at the bar before the 4am encounter, there is no reason to think he heard her.

Also, he asked her once, and politely and she said no and he said o.k. and went away. That was Watson's story. Even if what she said at the conference should have led a reasonable person to conclude she wasn't interested, a single question and an answer politely accepted without argument can't possibly be sexual harassment.

The only way this was bootstrapped into sexual harassment was through "Schrodinger's rapist" machinations and other roundabout rationalizations. She had a right to be afraid at 4am in an elevator, we are told so no man should have asked that question at that time in that place. Nonsense.

What rises above "petty discourtesy"? The guy licking unconsenting necks?

Yes, that does, as well as any unconsented touching. Also, repeated requests for sexual favors, pervasive sexual attention after being advised that it is unwelcome. That kind of thing.

The guy with the upskirt camera?

Yes, that's a crime.

Repeated propositioning of people in a non-social setting?

If unwelcome and continues after the answer is "no" - certainly. However, there is not blanket rule that people can't engage socially in what you might consider a "non-social" setting.

All those things that never happened because someone says they never happened, even though they were documented.

Well, the upskirt camera guy should be arrested, for example. And, I would love to hear more about the neck licker -- where did that occur? When? I haven't heard of that one. Do you have a link. And, I'd also want to hear more about the repeated propositioning in a non-social setting. Link?

Obviously, like sexual harassment in the workplace, there will be incidents. Just like mugging is illegal, but people will still get mugged. But, you do not help your case by talking about "neck lickers" and "upskirt camera guys" in the same breath as "lady wearing an I am not a skepchick t-shirt" and "fake jewelry." Do you see the difference? Do you acknowledge that there is a difference?

Nobody has said that the only thing that amounts to harassment is felony assault. To that extent, you have created a strawman yourself. Do you take it back, or will you link to the offending post?

Oh, I've seen it said. In the thread McGrew won't link to.

You said here. Was it here? On this forum? Where? Why does McGrew have to link to it? Why don't YOU link to it?

AND.. I'd be really interested in links the corrective rape jokes Ratz made about the people threatening to rape & kill the Skepchicks. Because the takeaway I'm getting is the threats & hating don't matter, but someone speaking up about the threats & hating is EEEEeeeeeeevvvviiiiiiil.

This is just plain nonsense. Many people here, most people, spoke out against the rape joke. They just didn't take it to the nth degree, looking to drive Pappa out of town on a rail after he sincerely and graciously apologized for making an ill-advised joke. We resented getting called "rape enablers" for a joke about rape (nobody threatened anybody with raping and killing - no threats were made at all).

This is what you folks do -- you take a legitimate point -- the issue of whether the joke was appropriate and whether an apology was necessary etc. and keep banging on it and making it into more than it is. I mean -- if you think someone was threatening rape or murder, call the police for fuck's sake. If you're just recasting a joke as a threat, when it's not a threat, then that is where you'll piss people off. I would say "guys, word to the wise, don't do that" - if you want to have productive conversation, you have to let people state their positions and listen to what they are saying. If someone apologizes and then you go on to call for them to resign and leave in disgrace, and then keep on about it, and then call the entire forum "slime pit denizens" and "rape enablers" you are likely to get the response you got -- a lot of people saying "what the fuck, folks? Cut the crap and grow up."

[Graculus]

Which women agree or disagree, and where?

We're not the borg.

I never said you were, that was a reply to Audley.

[Audley Strange]

Enjoying your hatemail are you? You seem proud of it.

It means I'm winning

Yeah I've heard that from Charlie Sheen and he was as clearly unhinged as some of the FtB/Skepchick/A+.

you just hate it when women don't agree with you on the awesomeness of the status quo?

Strawman much?

I'll indulge you though. First of all, FtB/Skepchick/A+ does not speak for all women. So your question would better be asked as "you just hate it when a specific group of people from FtB/Skepchick/A+ don't agree with you on the awesomeness of the status quo."

The answer to that would still be no. What I would say is that it is embarrassing that such people claim they are critical thinkers and skeptics when they are clearly ideologues who have all the answers and think they should be allowed to bitch and snipe and whine about bitching and sniping. Like every masochist, they call the shots.

I hate ideologues and I hate conspiratorial thinking and I hate adolescent political behaviour. All of which are exactly what this triad of sites have displayed over and over again as being panderers of and exactly what they are protesting against.

They are in short, fools.

[Graculus]

I'll indulge you though. First of all, FtB/Skepchick/A+ does not speak for all women.

Only you claim they claim so

What I would say is that it is embarrassing that such people claim they are critical thinkers and skeptics when they are clearly ideologues who have all the answers and think they should be allowed to bitch and snipe and whine about bitching and sniping.

well, yeah, I'm seeing a lot of that. Most of it is from the anti-FtB/Skepchick/A+ side. I guess free speech is fine until it says something discomforting, then it's "bitching & sniping & whining".

I hate ideologues and I hate conspiratorial thinking and I hate adolescent political behaviour. All of which are exactly what this triad of sites have displayed over and over again as being panderers of and exactly what they are protesting against.

Then don't indulge in it. Being an atheist doesn't magically confer great powers of wisdom. Neither does being a skeptic. Upskirt camera guy doesn't believe in god or bigfoot, either. I'm still sure I don't want to be in the same room as him, if only to keep myself out of jail. If "not all atheists are nice people" is an ideology, then "Bacon is yummy" is a fucking cult (& you may send me your tithes, preferably maple-smoked).

But the interesting question is the one you won't answer.. where were you when the threats were being made? Why are you reacting against the people recieving the threats?

[Robert_S]

I'll indulge you though. First of all, FtB/Skepchick/A+ does not speak for all women. {/quote]Only you claim they claim so

What I would say is that it is embarrassing that such people claim they are critical thinkers and skeptics when they are clearly ideologues who have all the answers and think they should be allowed to bitch and snipe and whine about bitching and sniping.

well, yeah, I'm seeing a lot of that. Most of it is from the anti-FtB/Skepchick/A+ side. I guess free speech is fine until it says something discomforting, then it's "bitching & sniping & whining".

I hate ideologues and I hate conspiratorial thinking and I hate adolescent political behaviour. All of which are exactly what this triad of sites have displayed over and over again as being panderers of and exactly what they are protesting against.

Then don't indulge in it. Being an atheist doesn't magically confer great powers of wisdom. Neither does being a skeptic. Upskirt camera guy doesn't believe in god or bigfoot, either. I'm still sure I don't want to be in the same room as him, if only to keep myself out of jail. If "not all atheists are nice people" is an ideology, then "Bacon is yummy" is a fucking cult (& you may send me your tithes, preferably maple-smoked).

But the interesting question is the one you won't answer.. where were you when the threats were being made? Why are you reacting against the people recieving the threats?

Where's the upskirt camera guy story?

[Coito ergo sum]

What I would say is that it is embarrassing that such people claim they are critical thinkers and skeptics when they are clearly ideologues who have all the answers and think they should be allowed to bitch and snipe and whine about bitching and sniping.

well, yeah, I'm seeing a lot of that. Most of it is from the anti-FtB/Skepchick/A+ side. I guess free speech is fine until it says something discomforting, then it's "bitching & sniping & whining".

I find this odd coming from someone who thinks a t-shirt that says "I am not a Skepchick" is an example of harassment. I guess free speech is fine until it says something discomforting, yes?

[Graculus]

Where's the upskirt camera guy story?

let me Google that for you