Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[wareyin]

It is your theory that Rebecca Watson made the whole thing up? She must be one helluva diabolical genius, to craft a story that we'd keep arguing about for years on end.

You have quite low standards for genius. There was no worldwide flood and ark, but how many years have people been arguing about that ludicrously impossible story?

Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams. Tested it myself.

Are you seriously comparing riding in an elevator to the World Trade Centers burning? Are you that ignorant of elevators?

Does this so-called lecturing make you emotionally uncomfortable? You seem fairly put out about it, as if you've been forced to listen to something you find unpleasant to contemplate.

"Guys, don't do that."

TRIGGERED

This is pathetic. Please try a little harder, next time.

 

[devnull]

I try to avoid creating situations which would make someone uncomfortable, unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

If that was even vaguely true, you would never leave the house.

Seriously, there probably isnt a situation you could name that wouldnt make *somebody* uncomfortable. The only option is to never interact with anyone, ever.

Or one could admit to oneself that this is a storm in a coffee cup, invented by someone seeking attention, that nobody is under any obligation to give a crap about this, and not giving a crap about it does not suddenly make you a misogynist ******* hellbent on destroying women.

The amusing thing is the absolute disgust and indignation that resulted from people not giving a crap, as if it was a god-given right for *everyone* to react violently to this extremely-important-elevator-issue, and if that didnt happen then the damn world just isnt fair and everybody sucks and you're all evil and I'm taking my bat and my ball and going home.

 

[d4m10n]

Dude, if you can't be bothered to look into an entire episode that split the skeptic and atheist community into dueling factions, oh my word, do you even know what the whole A+ and the FTB are all about?

I have a rudimentary understanding. Didn't really tune in until July 2011.

Are you under the impression this was only about elevatorgate?

Nope. That just happened to be what we were talking about just now.

I'm floored and frankly not going to waste my time bringing you up to speed in the Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB) Thread.

Excellent.

Not to mention the irony, RW is to be believed but the guy in the elevator, not so much.

You know who he is and what his side of the story sounds like? Please, do tell.

It may be literally true, but the attempt to pad the distress by playing that angle up is dishonest.

Unless you are the sort of American who finds Irishmen frightful. Which I do, having seen what they did to Canada in the Rugby World Cup.

She asked, what should she tell her 20 something yr old son how to act when such benign encounters were taken as sexual harassment?

There is no mention of sexual harassment in the original video. Are you critiquing something else that someone else said somewhere else?

In my feminist POV, how mousy are you if you can't brush off a guy making a pass at you without telling the entire male population they shouldn't dare make a pass at a gal they haven't been introduced to.

I'm sure there was a bit more context than just that.

How shall we clarify those rules?

Never talk to a gal alone in an elevator?
Never talk to a gal after ?? midnight? after 4am?
Never ask a gal to your hotel room for coffee and conversation?

How about, "Don't ask someone back to your room for "coffee" whom who you've never talked to before, especially upon finding them in a highly constrained space. This goes double for outspoken feminists who tend to go on about how they hate being sexualized."

Which part of that is too much to ask?

So then, what about all the women who wouldn't be bothered by this?

The women who would not be bothered by having what they said out loud (I'm tired and need to sleep) ignored by some guy hoping to take them to his room for coffee and a bit of whatever comes up? I've yet to meet a woman like that. You may well be the first.

We don't count because a bunch of radical feminists see every pass a guy makes as a come-on for sex?

"Every pass" delivered contrary to one's stated wishes, in an enclosed space, from someone with whom you've built exactly zero flirtatious rapport.

Which is a rather small subset of every pass.

Please do let me know if I missed anything.

Also, what exactly did Rebecca say wrong in the video or the associated blog post?

 

[GDon]

I'm not a fan of RW, Atheism +, SJWs, at all, but I think her comment "Guys, don't do that" as a response to being asked for a coffee in an enclosed space at 4 am is fine. It's her opinion. You can agree or disagree, but she is entitled to have an opinion and express it.

It was the stone that started an avalanche, but it doesn't mean it was anything other than a stone. People seemed to read into her opinion everything that followed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not a fan of RW, Atheism +, SJWs, at all, but I think her comment "Guys, don't do that" as a response to being asked for a coffee in an enclosed space at 4 am is fine. It's her opinion. You can agree or disagree, but she is entitled to have an opinion and express it.

It was the stone that started an avalanche, but it doesn't mean it was anything other than a stone. People seemed to read into her opinion everything that followed.

It would be interesting to count how many times this misinformation has been repeated.

Few people reacted to the vlog except a couple of women who said it didn't sound like a big deal to them and some of RW's usual profanity followers which wasn't anything new. That's when RW pushed a slew of boulders off the cliff, to use your metaphor, at the couple women with a different perspective, accusing them of being part of the rape culture and failing feminism 101. Oh, and did I mention that was at a public event from the podium where RW was the keynote speaker and one of the women who had had the different opinion was in attendance which RW called out by name. IIRC, RW put Stef Mcgraw's comment disagreeing with RW up on the overhead including the name.

You people really need to get your facts straight. Guess I can't blame you since it looks like half the accounts of elevatorgate have been scrubbed of the real initiating incident in favor of RW making it all about the profane emails she got following the vlog. That's disappointing seeing how many historical records of the initial event have been revised to take the actual initiating incident out. I had to hunt to find a record that hadn't scrubbed it out.

Now let's do some background. In the convention speech in which Rebecca Watson made her comments about the conduct of the clueless dork in the elevator, she trashed Stef McGraw who had made criticisms of of Watson's line, criticisms also largely made by Rose St. Clair too (@stclairose), and Watson had previously trashed Paula Kirby.

After that incident a blog comment war ensued:

In Watson's justification of it afterwards, Rebecca Watson claims she did not attack the person, i.e. McGraw, she only attacked the argument, but actually Watson accused McGraw of "parrotting of misogynistic thought", and accused her and @stclairose of "ignorance of Feminism 101" and of being "so uneducated about the fundamentals of feminist thought". Watson went on in self-justification, "I hope I don’t need to point out to this audience that criticizing a person’s words is not the same as criticizing the person. At no point did I ridicule McGraw ...".

It wasn't until after that began and RW tried to make it all about the rape culture and the fact (which is valid but a separate issue) prominent women with blogs typically get thousands of profane insults and rape threats in the comments.

I know that sounds all CTish that the records have been altered over time. I don't see it as a conspiracy, I see it as the loudest voices retelling their versions of events over and over until the actual version is lost and the 'repeated from the loudest POVs' version replaces the inconvenient facts.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have a rudimentary understanding. Didn't really tune in until July 2011.

So make an effort or take my word for it, it's not like it's hard to find out.

You know who he is and what his side of the story sounds like? Please, do tell.

We know what he did and said because RW told us what he did and said.

Unless you are the sort of American who finds Irishmen frightful. Which I do, having seen what they did to Canada in the Rugby World Cup.

This makes you sound desperate to make the incident out to be scary.

There is no mention of sexual harassment in the original video. Are you critiquing something else that someone else said somewhere else?

This is like asking someone to explain the civil war to you because this is the first you heard about it.

I've already addressed the rest of your comments.

 

[d4m10n]

We know what he did and said because RW told us what he did and said.

Not far upthread, someone was saying that EG was probably made up, but I'm happy to go with you on this one.

This makes you sound desperate to make the incident out to be scary.

Damn it. Should have included a winky face.

I've already addressed the rest of your comments.

You addressed, at some point, what exactly RW got factually or morally wrong in the original video and blog post?

I must have missed it. Link?

ETA: For what it is worth, I don't see anything wrong with telling your fan base (presumably that was the original intended audience) not to hit on you at cons, or not to do so in some particularly clumsy way. Do you disagree?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not far upthread, someone was saying that EG was probably made up, but I'm happy to go with you on this one.

Damn it. Should have included a winky face.

You addressed, at some point, what exactly RW got factually or morally wrong in the original video and blog post?

I must have missed it. Link?

Straw man: People think RW didn't have a right to her reaction to elevator guy.

Actual argument: RW went way over the top accusing all who disagreed with her of being part of the rape culture problem.

 

[d4m10n]

RW went way over the top accusing all who disagreed with her of being part of the rape culture problem.

I'm not seeing a reference here. Can we safely assume that you don't have any objections to the original video or the original blog post?

 

[devnull]

That's when RW pushed a slew of boulders off the cliff, to use your metaphor, at the couple women with a different perspective, accusing them of being part of the rape culture and failing feminism 101.

This. 100x this.

 

[d4m10n]

100x this.

100 x zero links = ???

ETA: It would be terribly helpful if someone, anyone, were to actually quote what RW said that was so wrong.

(I'm guessing it is not to be found in the original video or blog post.)

 

[d4m10n]

Are you seriously comparing riding in an elevator to the World Trade Centers burning? Are you that ignorant of elevators?

I was comparing two conspiracy theories. In yours, a woman who calls herself Skepchick and someone else who calls himself Rorschach concocted a story about a man who left a certain bar at 4am to make a certain proposal to a certain woman.

In the other one, George Bush something something inside job.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not seeing a reference here. Can we safely assume that you don't have any objections to the original video or the original blog post?

Are you talking now about the whole vlog or just the elevator segment? I find her rambling vlogs and frequent condescension toward people who don't share her view of the supposed rampant sexist behavior at atheist and skeptic events boring.

Re just elevatorgate, I thought her reaction was bad for feminism. I'm rather proud of the fact I've traveled around the country and the world, most of the time alone. And the idea of being upset because a guy made a pass, seriously, getting groped is bad, a guy politely hitting on you, not so much.

However, I'm fine that lots of woman would be upset about a similar situation. A lot of women are shy, and not as assertive and adventurous as I am. I think they could have handled the situation because nothing happened, but if some timid gal said it bothered her, I would believe her and there would be nothing wrong with that. I don't think the whole male population has to adjust to accommodate every shy woman out there, but telling others it bothered her? Not a problem.

Now if RW claims that was true for her, I can't read her mind.

But then I knew RW (not well, but well enough) before she had her feminism revelation. I don't believe she was honestly discomforted. But if none of this had occurred and all I saw was the vlog, I'd have rolled my eyes and that would have been the end of it. I certainly wouldn't care to debate that one incident with anyone.

I have, OTOH, spent a fair amount of time debating the claims about all the sexist men in the atheist and skeptical communities. There are some, but the Skepchick crowd, et al, have re-made themselves out to be the SJWs fighting the sexism windmills. The irony given what skepticism is all about, it burns.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

100 x zero links = ???

ETA: It would be terribly helpful if someone, anyone, were to actually quote what RW said that was so wrong.

(I'm guessing it is not to be found in the original video or blog post.)

Did you just ignore these posts?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10902504#post10902504

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10902493#post10902493


Other than that, "Guys, don't do that" was offensive unless she just meant, don't do it to her.

 

[Meed]

I'm not a fan of RW, Atheism +, SJWs, at all, but I think her comment "Guys, don't do that" as a response to being asked for a coffee in an enclosed space at 4 am is fine. It's her opinion. You can agree or disagree, but she is entitled to have an opinion and express it.

Agreed.

It was the stone that started an avalanche, but it doesn't mean it was anything other than a stone. People seemed to read into her opinion everything that followed.

The topic of whether or not guys should "do that" is just a topic that people tend to be very split on and thus it generates a lot of debate. I don't think most of the people who argue that it's an okay thing to do are saying "Therefore RW is a horrible person", much like I don't think most of the people who argue that it's not an okay thing to do are saying "Therefore the way RW treated Stef was totally justified". In my mind, the discussion has nothing to do with her other than the fact that she happened to be the one who sparked it.

You know, years back before Linda (fls) left the forum, she had one of the best answers to this.

She asked, what should she tell her 20 something yr old son how to act when such benign encounters were taken as sexual harassment?

Who said it was sexual harassment?

For all the people that embellish the encounter as you did below, There are more people who think it's ludicrous to tell guys to never approach a female they are interested in, lest she be frightened and uncomfortable.

Did anyone actually "tell guys to never approach a female they are interested in"?

 

[devnull]

Did anyone actually "tell guys to never approach a female they are interested in"?

No, it was "don't approach a female you are interested in, within scenarios I find uncomfortable..... and if you do, you failed feminism 101 etc etc blah blah release the rabid dogs".

I know plenty of women, some of which would identify as feminists, who would not have felt uncomfortable in such a scenario. Hell, he might have even gotten lucky, or at least had some nice Kenyan blend. Does this make them "not feminists"?

Again, who cares if she was uncomfortable? People are made to feel uncomfortable all the time. It's part of living in a society. If the guy's approach was misplaced (for her), so be it..... but do we really care?

 

[Meed]

No, it was "don't approach a female you are interested in, within scenarios I find uncomfortable.....

That I am aware of. "Don't approach a woman under specific scenario X" is a far far less extreme claim than "never approach a female you are interested in".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Who said it was sexual harassment?

RW in all the followup blog posts and discussions of how she felt "objectified".

Listen to the rest of the vlog, half or more of it is about how sexist the world is.

Did anyone actually "tell guys to never approach a female they are interested in"?

Well if you exaggerate the fear mongering angle:

Cornered in an enclosed space, rapes occur in elevators.
Four am middle of the night
In a foreign country
Practically asked her to come to his bed.

It sounds reasonable.

But if you don't fall for the fear mongering:

Happened in a 30 second elevator ride and we don't know but we can assume he was going to his room as well. (I did confirm earlier that she was only going up one floor (don't ask me to find it, the citation is a thousand posts back but I swear to you there is a citation back there).
Assaults are so rare on elevators as to almost round off to zero.
Four am middle of the night doesn't sound nearly as bad if you note people were out and about in the hotel bar just minutes before.
It's a four star hotel, no doubt the halls and elevators are well lit at night.
In a foreign country which is comparable to Canada
Practically asked her to come to his bed which never happened.


So, fear mongering version: guy was outrageous.
Factual version: good grief a guy made a pass at RW in an elevator.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, it was "don't approach a female you are interested in, within scenarios I find uncomfortable..... and if you do, you failed feminism 101 etc etc blah blah release the rabid dogs".

I know plenty of women, some of which would identify as feminists, who would not have felt uncomfortable in such a scenario. Hell, he might have even gotten lucky, or at least had some nice Kenyan blend. Does this make them "not feminists"?

Again, who cares if she was uncomfortable? People are made to feel uncomfortable all the time. It's part of living in a society. If the guy's approach was misplaced (for her), so be it..... but do we really care?

The rabid dogs comment is so apt.

And by the way, I've enjoyed sex on the first date many times in my younger days. What's wrong with a gal who also happens to enjoy sex?

Your post is exactly right.

 

[surreptitious57]

Skeptic Ginger : thank you for providing that link to Gurdurs blog. There is much more to all this than one
simple comment by Rebecca. I suspect even if a digital record of it remains that over time every one shall
merely reference their own take on the issue without being specifically concerned for the actual facts. Now
at least Gurdur tries to provide as comprehensive a back ground as possible to what happened. He has his
own opinions of course but one can still make up their own mind as a consequence of providing an archive
I actually wish some one would write a book on the whole episode and all its ramifications so as to provide
the absolute definitive article upon the entire thing. It would have to be done by some one however who is
entirely neutral with no obvious bias one way the other. Or failing that some one as neutral as it is possible
to be. One of the sad things is how it has been a major issue within some online sceptical and atheist cyber
communities like here. Since scepticism and atheism and feminism are supposed to be mutually compatible

One of the things that this issue brings up is the notion of sides. And I find that rather interesting because it
is actually a spectrum full of shades of grey rather than twin absolutes of black and white. Now I know of no
one individually or collectively that has a monopoly on wisdom. And so any idea that one must automatically
identify with one side over another all of the time is therefore some what simplistic and impractical. I myself
take from all and so do not identify with any one so called side from an exclusive perspective. I am far more
interested in ideas than individuals. Once you start employing ad hominem you have lost an ability to reason
So am as neutral as it is possible to be with regard to Rebecca and indeed any one at all come to that matter
whilst allowing for the fact that I am merely human. I do not have strong opinions one way or the other other
than agreeing with her about the fundamentals. Which is a total no brainer. This should be the natural default
position for any one genuinely interested in the issue. Indeed any issue for that matter regardless of what it is