Almost Diamonds http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds Politics. Sex. Science. Art. You know, the good stuff. Thu, 23 May 2013 19:35:52 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 The Strike at Putney http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/23/the-strike-at-putney/ http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/23/the-strike-at-putney/#comments Thu, 23 May 2013 19:35:52 +0000 Stephanie Zvan http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/?p=5228 I’ve read rather a lot of Lucy Maud Montgomery’s work. So it is that, frequently over the last couple of years, a particular story has been called to mind. Today, between Monette’s guest post this morning and a friend on Twitter asking why she is “still involved with a movement where the idea of not cornering women in enclosed spaces created a two-year-and-counting blood feud”, it seemed an appropriate time to share it.

This isn’t to suggest any particular course of action. It’s simply a note that I try never to forget how much any group that runs on volunteer effort relies on the unpaid work of women.

“But what are we going to do, ladies?” said Mrs. Robbins briskly. Mrs. Robbins was the president. She was a big, bustling woman with clear blue eyes and crisp, incisive ways. Hitherto she had held her peace. “They must talk themselves out before they can get down to business,” she had reflected sagely. But she thought the time had now come to speak.

“You know,” she went on, “we can talk and rage against the men all day if we like. They are not trying to prevent us. But that will do no good. Here’s Mrs. Cotterell invited, and all the neighbouring auxiliaries notified–and the men won’t let us have the church. The point is, how are we going to get out of the scrape?”

A helpless silence descended upon the classroom. The eyes of every woman present turned to Myra Wilson. Everyone could talk, but when it came to action they had a fashion of turning to Myra.

She had a reputation for cleverness and originality. She never talked much. So far today she had not said a word. She was sitting on the sill of the window across from Lucy Knox. She swung her hat on her knee, and loose, moist rings of dark hair curled around her dark, alert face. There was a sparkle in her grey eyes that boded ill to the men who were peaceably pursuing their avocations, rashly indifferent to what the women might be saying in the maple-shaded classroom.

“Have you any suggestion to make, Miss Wilson?” said Mrs. Robbins, with a return to her official voice and manner.

Myra put her long, slender index finger to her chin.

“I think,” she said decidedly, “that we must strike.”

Keep reading.

]]> http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/23/the-strike-at-putney/feed/ 3 A Very Uncomfortable Place http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/23/a-very-uncomfortable-place/ http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/23/a-very-uncomfortable-place/#comments Thu, 23 May 2013 13:14:09 +0000 Stephanie Zvan http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/?p=5225 I met Monette Richards at last year’s Women in Secularism conference, though I’d known her online before that. We’ve since become friends, just as is the case for every CFI volunteer or staff member I’ve spent any significant amount of time interacting with. They are good people, doing excellent work, many of whom are in very tough spots after this year’s conference. Monette wrote this about being in that tough spot.

Early last year, I discovered Center for Inquiry because of an event they were throwing, the first Women in Secularism conference. When doing further research, I found a chapter that met not two blocks from my house. Never one to pass up imbibing beers with like-minded people, especially when I can walk home, my husband and I joined and started attending meetings.

We were immediately made to feel welcome by the entire group. They were personable and interested in talking to us and none of them said “bless you” when I sneezed! It was awesome.  Then, we went to Arlington, VA for the conference.

I keep trying to express exactly what that conference did for me, but can never come up with the words.  Instead, I will tell you what it inspired me to do.

Since joining CFI, I have organized a charity event with a local battered women’s shelter, a lobby day for our state, a night with Shelley Segal, dinner with Hug an Atheist’s Sylvia Broeckx and, as the VP of Programming for Center for Inquiry – Northeast Ohio, expanded our monthly events list.

I’m not trying to toot my own horn, here. This is to show how active I’ve become in this movement because of Women in Secularism. I found a home in CFI and did the best I could to make it a great one.

This is why I was so thoroughly disappointed in the actions of Ron Lindsay this past weekend at Women in Secularism2. To watch the CEO of the organization I’ve come to love undermine all the work his female employee, Melody Hensley, had done, use his position to belittle a room full of people who paid to attend a conference about women, personally welcome a known harasser, thereby validating all the harassment and abuse women have been getting, and throw a temper tantrum when faced for criticism of it all was maddening.

I cannot keep putting my time and effort into an organization that condones such behavior from its leadership.

I have a board meeting tomorrow.  I have asked that an item be placed on the agenda so that we may talk about this past weekend and what it means for my inclusion in this organization. What do I do? Do I leave CFI? Do I write a letter and hope things change? Do I ask the other board members to stand with me against the head of our organization’s actions? How do we show solidarity in the face of the national board?

]]> http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/23/a-very-uncomfortable-place/feed/ 29 Vacula v. Silverman http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/22/vacula-v-silverman/ http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/22/vacula-v-silverman/#comments Wed, 22 May 2013 18:56:24 +0000 Stephanie Zvan http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/?p=5219 Because some folks are asking it be pulled out of Twitter into a readable form. Throwing in another voice or two you don’t usually see involved, because ripple effects are part of the point.

@ With is with your constant pandering toward women, Dave? It seems to belittle them, as if their merits don't stand on own.
May 22, 2013 2:42 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula

@ you mean when I treat women as equals & allies, while dissing the anonymous assholes who post and rt vile messages & pix?
May 22, 2013 10:12 am via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
@MrAtheistPants
David Silverman

@ So much pandering w these anti-harassment policies, http://t.co/08M3nW6jWK, tweet about having more than 50% speakers...
May 22, 2013 10:22 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ This stuff is not needed. The merits of women in this movement stand on their own...and they don't need to be 'defended.'
May 22, 2013 10:23 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ With your pandering, you help spread false narrative - that community is hostile to and excluding women.
May 22, 2013 10:26 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ SOME of the community is genuinely hostile. It disgusts me. When some Pretend otherwise,despite evidence,it looks like defense
May 22, 2013 10:35 am via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
@MrAtheistPants
David Silverman

[Okay, one editorial comment I couldn't resist: When this guy tells you he recognizes hostility, treat him as the expert he is.]

@ I would LOVE to see you publicly trash the genuine haters. Stop pretending there are no assholes.
May 22, 2013 10:37 am via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
@MrAtheistPants
David Silverman
@ for example, the fake pic of @ in sexually demeaning position. Can you agree that's shit? Publicly?
May 22, 2013 10:40 am via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
@MrAtheistPants
David Silverman
@ @ even talking about it would draw attention to it, which is exactly what the person who did it wants.
May 22, 2013 10:58 am via Tweetbot for iOSReplyRetweetFavorite
@RichardReed84
Richard Reed
@ agree, but praise is implied in the defense, prompting repeat. If @ is to be heard he must acknowledge, abhor it.
May 22, 2013 11:04 am via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
@MrAtheistPants
David Silverman
@ @ @ Reprehensible? Yes. However, not related to atheism or skepticism.
May 22, 2013 11:03 am via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@ @ @ I completely disagree, and use your tweet as case-in-point.
May 22, 2013 11:07 am via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
@MrAtheistPants
David Silverman
@ @ @ same goes for EVERYONE who lol'ed it and rt'd. Shit shit shit. This is your problem.
May 22, 2013 11:08 am via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
@MrAtheistPants
David Silverman
@ can't get into this now. One final word. If you can't bring yourself to fight shit, you will be seen as approving it.
May 22, 2013 11:10 am via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
@MrAtheistPants
David Silverman
@ @ Sure, it's shit. ...but this is not a serious voice in the discussion. It's an obvious Rule 34 troll picture.
May 22, 2013 11:14 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ @ You say this is problem in movement. Do we know identity of person who made this picture?
May 22, 2013 11:15 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ @ @ Apparently, we can bash Islam all day and Draw Mohammad, but RW is sacred, immune from ridicule?
May 22, 2013 11:15 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula

[Another required editorial comment: Does he not know what "defending" means"?]

@ What is the evidence? Who are these "genuinely hostile" people and how do you know they are part of community?
May 22, 2013 11:16 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ Why is it case I ought to publicly trash? I can't police the whole of internet trolling. Who are these "genuine haters?"
May 22, 2013 11:17 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ There are jerks out there, sure, but are these people in movement, serious voices in discussion? What are they saying?
May 22, 2013 11:17 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ @ Defense? What defense? Who or what am I defending?
May 22, 2013 11:19 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula

[Oh, I give up: Yes, just not very well.]

@ @ @ Is this photoshop from someone in the movement? How do you know?
May 22, 2013 11:20 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ I suppose, Dave, you approve of everything you don't fight?
May 22, 2013 11:20 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ @ @ RW and co. lump all critics as one in same when it actually is not the case.
May 22, 2013 11:22 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula

[That's 10 tweets. In case you were wondering why he gets blocked on Twitter.]

In response to asking whether Rebeca is sacred:

@ @ @ hyperbole. Never said nor suggested that. You are not hearing me.
May 22, 2013 11:28 am via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
@MrAtheistPants
David Silverman
@ @ @ @ @ I don't support that image. Don't see as 'problem' in mvt from this
May 22, 2013 11:35 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
It's the avalanche of such harassment, @ It's a problem. @ @ @ @
May 22, 2013 11:36 am via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@CamelsHammers
Dan Fincke

In regard to a “LOL” from Vacula on a side conversation:

@ Your detractors don't mind criticism. They mind hate. Take their sides when you agree. Seek no excuses to miss opportunities.
May 22, 2013 11:36 am via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
@MrAtheistPants
David Silverman
@ People like RW conflate - act as if all opposition is "haters" "misogynists" "sexists" and such.
May 22, 2013 11:37 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ I'm not up for policing the internet with every objectionable picture that might be out there.
May 22, 2013 11:38 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ People detest RW and complany because of their behavior, not bc they are women - RW claims misogyny problem in mvt
May 22, 2013 11:39 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ Besides, PZ Myers gets a tremendous amount of pushback, people detest him bc of behavior...is that because he is a man?
May 22, 2013 11:40 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ then criticize her. But just as I vocally abhor violence against churches, YOU must abhor hate v women to be taken seriously.
May 22, 2013 11:40 am via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
@MrAtheistPants
David Silverman
@ What is this "hate v women?" Why make it a gendered issue, anyway?
May 22, 2013 11:40 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ Has RW been met with violence or threats of violence? Evidence please.
May 22, 2013 11:41 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ you're not listening. I tried to help. Please consider what I've written and meant. Gotta go.
May 22, 2013 11:42 am via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
@MrAtheistPants
David Silverman

Going back to conflating criticism and hate:

@ @ You LET her do that by not separating yourself from the hatred but making excuses for it.
May 22, 2013 11:43 am via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@CamelsHammers
Dan Fincke
@ @ A moment ago you justified sexually demeaning images of RW by comparing them to justifiable satire of islam
May 22, 2013 11:52 am via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@CamelsHammers
Dan Fincke
@ @ I did not justify anything. I asked a question.
May 22, 2013 12:01 pm via Twitter for AndroidReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ @ If we are going to demean Mohammad, Islam and be OK, why be up in arms about (1/2)
May 22, 2013 12:02 pm via Twitter for AndroidReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ @ people satirizing, ridiculing Rebecca Watson? Why is she on the pedestal? (2/2)
May 22, 2013 12:03 pm via Twitter for AndroidReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ @ Here was my answer about the satire of islam vs. satire of tw, in case you missed it: http://t.co/e6hG9nkfTj
May 22, 2013 12:09 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@CamelsHammers
Dan Fincke
@ Because she is a person and sometimes ally while Mohammed is not. @ @
May 22, 2013 12:09 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@BirdTerrifier
Chas Stewart
@ @ She's not on a pedestal.The real question's why there's website DEVOTED to hating her & allies as sole purpose
May 22, 2013 12:12 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@CamelsHammers
Dan Fincke
@ @ Can you pls identify site and how you know it has sole purpose, is dedicated to hate of RW and friends?
May 22, 2013 12:14 pm via Twitter for AndroidReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ @ Is there another purpose to the SlymePit than hating RW and friends? Is it advancing some other agenda?
May 22, 2013 12:15 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@CamelsHammers
Dan Fincke
@ @ you make excuses by defending any and all satire of RW on grounds she's not off limits in general, like islam
May 22, 2013 12:17 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@CamelsHammers
Dan Fincke
@ @ Actually, there are all sorts of non-RW and friends conversations...and it is not all hate...or even mostly.
May 22, 2013 12:19 pm via Twitter for AndroidReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ @ I'm talking about the purpose of the site, Justin, not whether friendships have happened to bloom there.
May 22, 2013 12:20 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@CamelsHammers
Dan Fincke
@ @ You should know, anyway, I am among most photoshopped person there. Everyone gets made fun of.
May 22, 2013 12:20 pm via Twitter for AndroidReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ @ You should visit and post on the Slymepit. Put some ideas forth, ask questions. It is fun place.
May 22, 2013 12:21 pm via Twitter for AndroidReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula

[Vacula finds the slimepit a fun place. He can't, apparently, figure out why other don't.]

Dave steps back in to try, one more time to reason with Vacula:

@ you are fighting two different fights. U see it as attacking actions but they see it as hate bc you support shit. 1/2
May 22, 2013 12:25 pm via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
@MrAtheistPants
David Silverman
@ if you denounce shit, your attacks on rw's actions will be taken far more seriously. Like when I denounce church vandalism.
May 22, 2013 12:27 pm via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
@MrAtheistPants
David Silverman
@ few would seriously consider criticism against me from a WBC supporter, right? Even if it were correct? Abhor hate & b heard
May 22, 2013 12:45 pm via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
@MrAtheistPants
David Silverman
@ What is this assumption - that if I don't speak against x I support x? That's unreasonable, very high demand you pose
May 22, 2013 12:48 pm via Twitter for AndroidReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ Again, me & Church vandalism. Perfect analogy. Decry or be perceived to support, fair or not.
May 22, 2013 12:50 pm via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
@MrAtheistPants
David Silverman
@ hate and threats against your opposition is the wrong thing about which to be silent.
May 22, 2013 12:52 pm via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
@MrAtheistPants
David Silverman
@ It's unfair and unreasonable. You must be moral monster bc of all the things you don't speak against...
May 22, 2013 12:54 pm via Twitter for AndroidReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ Shall we say, Dave, you support campaigns of male circumcision in Africa if you don't speak against it?
May 22, 2013 12:57 pm via Twitter for AndroidReplyRetweetFavorite
@justinvacula
Justin Vacula
@ it is neither. It is fact. Every time a church is vandalized I put out a statement abhorring vandalism bc I am not about that.
May 22, 2013 12:57 pm via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
@MrAtheistPants
David Silverman
@ your hesitancy to do the same is troubling. This is a clear and easy path I take all the time.
May 22, 2013 12:58 pm via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
@MrAtheistPants
David Silverman

By this time, the “conversation” is general, messy and repetitive, so I’ll just leave it with this, from one of the guys who’s been using the TAM hashtags as dumping grounds for anti-Skepchick BS for the last couple of years and who participated in the Great Penis Debate:

wow, @ and @ are arguing on twitter, and I must say, I pretty much agree with @
May 22, 2013 1:49 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@Sc00ter
Travis Roy
]]> http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/22/vacula-v-silverman/feed/ 64 Now I’m a Nazi Sniper http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/21/now-im-a-nazi-sniper/ http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/21/now-im-a-nazi-sniper/#comments Tue, 21 May 2013 13:22:05 +0000 Stephanie Zvan http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/?p=5211 Here’s an adorable little bit of propaganda that’s being passed around on one of the harasser hashtags.

 

(Link to Storify for browsers where the embedding doesn’t work.)

Sweet, huh?

Notice how it never comes out and says that Greg, I, or Amanda are incorrect about any of the things we said. Notice how it doesn’t actually make the argument out loud that the leaders of organizations that claim to represent us, to which we donate our time and our money, should be allowed to run those organizations with no accountability. Note how it never explicitly says that we’re a political coalition with state power engaging in serial genocide. Note how it never puts in words the idea that we’re hiding in some safe place at some safe distance in order to take out our targets.

That’s because those ideas are stupid.

That’s because those arguments are grossly inflammatory in an atmosphere that already includes harassment and threats.

Damion Reinhardt doesn’t say any of those things because then people would be able to quote him on them. He just puts them in pictures and whistles at the ceiling.

Damion, we’re not stupid. We know, however, that your target audience is all too ready to buy the crap arguments you won’t even put into bald words. They’re already calling themselves “brave heroes” for opposing us. We will hold you responsible for what they do with those arguments.

]]> http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/21/now-im-a-nazi-sniper/feed/ 45 The Hand That Feeds Me? http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/20/the-hand-that-feeds-me/ http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/20/the-hand-that-feeds-me/#comments Mon, 20 May 2013 20:02:05 +0000 Stephanie Zvan http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/?p=5208 There was an interesting (in the Minnesotan sense of “interesting”) thread running on the Women in Secularism hashtag briefly during the conference. According to people who weren’t there to hear Ron Lindsay’s opening speech, criticism of that speech was “biting the hand that feeds” us. Fascinating, isn’t it?

The implications for what those tweeters believe are just a wee bit staggering. First of all, the majority of those complaining about Ron’s remarks were paying customers. A conference like this isn’t something an organization like CFI pays for out of the goodness of its heart. It’s a promotional event.

A conference like this (as opposed to Skepticon) is an event that captures the eyes of the press and eyes and wallets of the public. Attendees pay for tickets. They pay for food and drinks and travel to a nice building and a nice conference staffed by professionals with the help of a few volunteers.

Not all of those costs are paid by attendees. Student tickets are subsidized. Outside organizations and sometimes the hosting organization raise money from donors to pay the admission of some people who can’t afford to attend on their own.

That still doesn’t always cover the whole cost of the conference, but the additional money spent by the organization is generally considered advertising. Holding these events raises the profile and increases the prestige of the organization involved. Even then, from what I can see, Women in Secularism comes far, far closer to paying for itself than most conferences of its sort.

The attendees aren’t being fed. They’re buying a service. They are well within their rights to complain about it.

Of course, many of the speakers complained as well. Were we biting the hand that feeds us? Well, given that most of us worked for travel expenses and a dinner at which donors could pay to eat with us, I’ll say no. I’m out of pocket for this conference. I know other speakers honoraria didn’t cover all their expenses. It certainly didn’t cover the time they could have spent earning money by, say, writing.

The large majority of us gave our time and our audiences’ attention to make this conference a success. We actively managed what was an ugly PR situation at the conference with the cooperation of those ticket-buying audience members. We propped up the morale of (very nearly all of) Lindsay’s employees at the conference. We engaged in a mutual business transaction with CFI and were called on at the last moment to take on additional duties we hadn’t agreed to.

We speakers weren’t fed but bitten. If anyone wants to complain about me complaining about that, I’ve got a very nice hand they can talk to. They’ll find it a bit tough to chew on.

Finally, there’s the ugly little metaphor of all of us being hand-fed. We’re nobody’s pets. We’re not incapable of feeding ourselves. Nobody at this conference was passively consuming what was given to them.

Questions were frequent and challenging and made active contributions to the discussion. One of them I even feel I need to revisit in a blog post because what I said on stage could be taken as an excuse when I meant it to be exactly the opposite.

So not only is the metaphor wrong, but it’s pointlessly (and missing-the-pointingly) insulting to people with a legitimate grievance and the standing to complain. Of course, that’s about what I expect from that crowd of “dissenters”, but it’s worth pointing out just one more time.

]]> http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/20/the-hand-that-feeds-me/feed/ 25 Mock the Movie: Xtreme Xercise Edition http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/20/mock-the-movie-xtreme-xercise-edition/ http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/20/mock-the-movie-xtreme-xercise-edition/#comments Mon, 20 May 2013 12:42:13 +0000 Stephanie Zvan http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/?p=5190 Because we’re apparently on a bad tech movie kick, this Wednesday, May 22, we’ll be mocking Expect No Mercy. We don’t expect we’ll be giving this film any. There will be Tae Bo jokes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI-6ZnsJkdI

This movie is freely available on YouTube.

Then…oh, then comes June 5. And on June 5 comes Atlas Shrugged, Part the First. Look upon John Galt, ye compassionate, and giggle. Or fall asleep.

Just try not to mock it. This one is, of course, not freely available, but it is on Netflix and Amazon Instant.

Two weeks after that, we take a different view of what it means to free yourself from pesky government intervention with Delta Force 2: The Colombian Connection, a movie that appears to be so incoherent that even it’s IMDb description can’t be followed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVlMbxVjswg

This movie is also freely available on YouTube.

“These all sound awful!” I hear you cry. Yes. Yes, they do. “These must be mocked mercilessly”, you say. Well, then you’re in the right company. The instructions for playing along:

  1. Start following @MockTM on Twitter.
  2. Start watching the movie on the appropriate Wednesday at 9 p.m. EDT.
  3. Once you’ve got the movie going, tweet your snarky comments to @MockTM.  Directing our tweets to @MockTM will keep our followers from being overwhelmed with our snark!
  4. Set up a search for @MockTM on Twitter for the duration so you can follow along with everyone else sharing your pain.

If you have suggestions for other movies that can and should be mocked, send them to @MockTM. Preference will be given to movies that are free or stream on the major media delivery services. Watch the feed, and we’ll set up the calendar for more terrible, mockable movies.

]]> http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/20/mock-the-movie-xtreme-xercise-edition/feed/ 0 An Alternate Universe http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/19/an-alternate-universe/ http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/19/an-alternate-universe/#comments Sun, 19 May 2013 17:25:42 +0000 Stephanie Zvan http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/?p=5197

Rebecca Watson inhabits an alternate universe.

That’s how Ron Lindsay, CEO of Center for Inquiry, who is attending his organization’s own Women in Secularism conference, opened a blog post last night. That blog post is noteworthy mostly for missing the point and much of the text of the post it’s responding to. However, that is obvious enough that it’s already been pointed out in the comments and probably will be repeatedly noted in other blog posts across the ‘net. I don’t care much for pointing out the obvious, but there is one thing about this post I would like to address.

I agree with Ron Lindsay about this statement. Rebecca does live in an alternate universe. So do I.

You see, she and I live in a universe in which, if the organizations were hosting conferences where 300 people had paid money for the experience we had advertised, we would never, ever be allowed to get away with opening that conference with a speech like this one. If we were given (or took) that responsibility and used that to, as I put it yesterday on a panel, say, “Your work and your concerns are good, they’re important, but for the love of humanity, don’t take it too far“, we would never be allowed to step on another stage.

In the universe where we live, if Rebecca or I had used an opportunity like that to lecture a demographic about a statement made by people who aren’t even in that demographic, only one of whom was even in the audience, everybody would step up to talk about how off topic we were. If a few people did step up to tell us how wonderful this hijacking was, we would have to be very politically aware of who those people were and what kind of baggage they carried with them. We wouldn’t be able to be comfortable with mere affirmation because every endorsement we receive colors our reputations. We are always under pressure to–in that very Victorian phrase–keep our sphere of influence pure.

In our universe, we certainly wouldn’t be able to pull out such weak examples of a phenomenon we considered important enough to devote prominent words to. If we used the example of someone talking about tactics for learning as an example of “silencing”, we’d be laughed out of the room. If we used an example that was telling us shutting up and listening isn’t easy but is worthwhile as an example of a demand, people would stop listening to us. Even when we disagree with someone’s premise, we come up with better examples of it than that (and maintain plenty of examples of the effective sort of silencing). We have to, because in our universe, our credibility is always on the line.

In this universe, we don’t get to write a letter talking about reaching out privately, then tweet something like this the day before a conference starts without having reached out to any of the speakers ahead of time:

Preparing my questions for my opening talk at #wiscfi Yes, I will have several questions that I hope will be addressed during the conf
May 16, 2013 12:21 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@RALindsay
Ronald A. Lindsay

We don’t just get to stand up at the last minute and expect to direct the content of a conference because we’ve expressed a preference. We actually do talk to speakers personally, privately, with lead time if there’s something we’d like to hear, but we know they have their own agendas and trust them to have interesting, worthwhile things to say. We expect, because we’ve been taught to expect, that the people on that stage have something to teach us and that we won’t know ahead of time what part of their talks will be valuable. We know that they frequently know better than we do what we need to hear–because that’s how they end up on stage.

In our universe, this is not a surprise:

@ also interesting that you focus on my sex and race, not merits of what I said; plus my remarks were 4 men as well as women
May 17, 2013 1:33 pm via Twitter for BlackBerry®ReplyRetweetFavorite
@RALindsay
Ronald A. Lindsay

Our gender is always considered relevant to what we have to say. We always know that, day in and day out. When we speak up, we always carry the weight of other women on our back. Being white, I personally don’t live in a universe in which my race is always treated as relevant, but I know from listening to others that they do.

In the universe where Rebecca and I live, we know that the response to us saying something people disagree with is immediate. We know that criticism will address the perceived subtext of our words as though we had said or written it outright. We know we’ll be on the hook for everyone’s ideas about the social appropriateness of what we have to say, all at the same time, no matter how contradictory those words are. We know we’ll pay a price for failing to “keep the peace”.

In this universe, we are aware that we are considered perpetual outsiders. We know that even when we lend financial and organizational support, any constructive criticism we present, however politely we present it, will be construed as an attack. We always have to plan for that eventuality when choosing to speak.

In Lindsay’s universe, he can decide to skip out on a dinner attendees have paid extra to attend, a dinner that is a fundraiser for the organization whose fiscal health he is ultimately responsible for, in order to write and post something that would piss off the vast majority of those potential donors. He can ignore that his absence will be obvious, that talk at that fundraising dinner will inevitably touch on that absence and the reasons for it. He can ignore that he has already spent significant time at a conference antagonizing those attendees and potential donors and pursue the indulgence of his own pique.

In my universe, I would be fired for doing that. That behavior would be called grossly unprofessional even by those who sympathized with how I felt. It would be called a temper tantrum. I would be told to grow up, to stop letting criticism get to me, to stop being so emtional. In fact, in my universe, I’m told all that for far, far less.

In our universe, if Rebecca collected her Skepchick team together for an event, then gave that team a surprise like Lindsay’s speech obviously was to the CFI employees at Women in Secularsim, she would be called unfit for leadership. If I used Minnesota Atheist events to make personal points without discussing strategy with the other people responsible for making those events a success, I wouldn’t stay on the board very long at all. If either of us put our teammates in the terribly uncomfortable position Lindsay put all of the CFI staff in at this conference, we’d be called unstable, irresonsible narcissists out for self-aggrandizement. Again, in our universe, we face that “criticism” for far, far less.

In Lindsay’s universe, he can take a quote from Secular Woman that doesn’t say what he says it says and try to use it as a wedge against someone whose goals overlap with those of Secular Woman. He can do that just a few short weeks after having a public disagreement with the leadership of Secular Woman and having been–privately–dissuaded from making that disagreement blow up further in public by the very people he’s using that quote against now. He doesn’t worry about that action being seen as petty revenge over that disagreement.

In my universe, I always have to be aware of working relationships. I have to aware that I am not identified with the work of my organization or my movement no matter how much of it I do personally, so I will not be protected by those considerations by others’ investment in the success of that work. I know, Rebecca knows, the leadership of Secular Woman know that I am only protected to the extent that I invest in and maintain the health of those relationships. We know that, on our own, we are vulnerable.

So, yeah, Rebecca Watson does live in an alternate universe. So do I. It’s called, “being female”. And I am completely stunned that this would be treated as news, particularly at the Women in Secularism conference. We spent last year’s conference–which Lindsay attended–describing the landscape of this universe. We’ve talked for years about how our universe is different than that of a white male CEO. In the year since the first Women in Secularism conference, we’ve significantly stepped up how often we talk about that topic.

Lindsay, however, has managed, despite those experiences, to find it a surprise that this alternate universe exists and that he knows people who inhabit it. Somehow he has managed not to hear what we’ve been saying over and over and over. Something he’s been doing–or not doing–has kept him from picking up this information that, as the speaker opening this conference, is crucial.

I could speculate about what that is, but Lindsay used his position to tell me that this is unwelcome. Instead, I’ll close this by offering him a word of advice.

Ron, you can come up with any strategy you like for learning about this universe in which I live and operate. You’re a smart man, you can figure something out. Just do it quickly. The people who were wiling to occasionally shut up and listen are getting way ahead of you on this, and that’s not going to work. You can’t lead something–or someone–you don’t understand. You need to be on top of this. Now.

]]> http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/19/an-alternate-universe/feed/ 48 Girls: Missing Victims of Religious Sexual Abuse? http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/18/girls-missing-victims-of-religious-sexual-abuse/ http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/18/girls-missing-victims-of-religious-sexual-abuse/#comments Sat, 18 May 2013 20:11:06 +0000 Stephanie Zvan http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/?p=5128 The classic picture we have of a child victim of sexual abuse in religious institutions is a boy being abused by a Catholic priest. There are a couple of good reasons for that.

The first is that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has given us a central group of people we can point fingers at for the decades of inaction (or action against victims) in their churches. The victims of Catholic priests have a powerful central authority to deal with, and it’s given them reason to band together and reason for news media to report on their immense struggle to be acknowledged.

The other reason is that, again because the Catholic Church has a central authority, it has made it easier for researchers studying church-facilitated abuse to use the Church as a proxy for religious institutions more generally.

The Catholic Church, however, is unusual. It is extreme both in the degree of organization and in the degree to which it limits the role of girls in the church. This means that stereotypes of child sexual abuse in the church are likely going to be misleading. Not surprisingly, a new study and report has found just that.

Young girls are just as likely as young boys to be sexually abused by a member of the clergy, a new QUT study has shown.

The report, ‘They Did Not Believe Me’: Adult Survivors’ Perspectives of Child Sexual Abuse by Personnel in Christian Institutions, is the first of its kind in Australia relying on personal experiences rather than church data.

Dr Jodi Death from QUT’s Crime and Justice Research Centre said the results, published yesterday, contradicted previous studies showing young boys were more likely to be sexually assaulted in the church.

Death recruited survivors of religious sexual assault from among survivor groups and networks. Because the small amount of data we have suggests women tend to seek help for dealing with the aftermath of assault more than men do, this shouldn’t necessarily be taken as The True Picture of who is assaulted. It does, however, suggest that we need to take more care with those stereotypes.

The full report is available as a pdf. It has a wealth of information from survivors. Where possible, those surveyed were also interviewed about their experiences. This technique uncovers aspects of participants’ experiences that researchers might not think to ask about on their own, and that shows in this report. If you read it, you’ll find information on how offenders managed access to the children, how they groomed them, how the victims finally stopped the abuse (yes, most of the abuse stopped because of actions taken by children).
If you want to understand child sexual abuse in (generally Christian) religious institutions, I recommend reading this report. Although it’s Australian, the nature of religious institutions and their relationship to believers is such that these findings should be broadly applicable to the U.S. as well.As painful as the subject is, this report is good to see. Though much of the results tell us that abuse looks very similar whether it’s inside our outside religious institutions, we need to know that to understand how to tackle the problem. Stereotypes aren’t going to cut it.

]]> http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/18/girls-missing-victims-of-religious-sexual-abuse/feed/ 12 Saturday Storytime: Come to My Arms, My Beamish Boy http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/18/saturday-storytime-come-to-my-arms-my-beamish-boy/ http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/18/saturday-storytime-come-to-my-arms-my-beamish-boy/#comments Sat, 18 May 2013 13:31:35 +0000 Stephanie Zvan http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/?p=5166 Douglas F. Warrick writes surreal short stories, weird little realities that make internal sense but don’t leave the reader exactly comfortable. His first collection of these stories, Plow the Bones, is just out.

“You know the funny thing about these visits?”

Eisley looked up again. For a second, his glasses looked like they might flood with whiteness again, but just a flicker and then his eyes were on Cotton, those eyes that used to be so wild, so mad with the things he knew, now just sad and accommodating. He sighed and said, “What’s that, Cotton?”

“When you’re around,” Cotton said and shifted his weight on the hard, lumpy hospital bed. The memories of his dead–sleeping mind still stuck to him and he was grateful. “I feel better… Not… you know, not all the way right again. Just… I know where I am.”

Eisley nodded. His eyes left Cotton and he sighed again. He really hadn’t changed. Not in sixty damned years had he changed. His brown hair still crept down across his wide pale brow and he still brushed it back in place with the side of his finger like he didn’t even know he was doing it. He had the same suit. Even now, in spite of his compassionate tone and his pitying eyes, he was still performing, still impressing himself with his own aesthetic control.

Nobody really changed all that much. Not in the end.

The things in the shadows chattered and mumbled. They sounded like children… no… no, like the tapes he used to play for… for his grandkids, the ones, the… the Chipmunk tapes. In the van. On the way to… to what? Jesus, what a thing was this that he could remember the goddamned tapes but not the names of the kids he used to play them for. What a goddamned thing was this.

“I guess… this will probably be the last visit?”

Eisley leaned forward, rested his arms on his knees and squeezed his long thin hands together. His fingernails looked blue. His voice was clinical. “What makes you say that, Cotton?”

“I’m tired. I’m… running out of…” His mind locked up. He felt his mouth open up, heard the confused mewling, croaking noise that came out. He felt stuck, locked inside his own body, pounding his fists against the walls and screaming, No, damn it! Don’t do this to me now! Give it back, it’s mine, it’s been mine for eighty–four goddamned years! It’s my body, my mind, let me have it back!

“You’re running out. I understand.” Eisley stood up, brushed his hands down the front of his brown pants, the pleats standing out from the shadows they cast. They were too long on him, bunching around his well–polished loafers. This was the way with Eisley. Everything always polished. Everything always just slightly ill fitting. “I hope,” he said, his eyes disappearing again behind the great white flood in his spectacles, “that you’re right, Cotton. About this being the last, I mean. I hope that quite sincerely.”

The things in the shadows, slick and black, smiling with their whole faces, crawled forward. Cotton closed his eyes again.

Keep reading.

]]> http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/18/saturday-storytime-come-to-my-arms-my-beamish-boy/feed/ 2 A Comedy Crush http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/17/a-comedy-crush/ http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/17/a-comedy-crush/#comments Fri, 17 May 2013 19:33:35 +0000 Stephanie Zvan http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/?p=5156 I went to the taping of Wits last Friday. A couple friends are fans of Neko Case and Kelly Hogan, and they asked us whether we wanted to join them. We said, “Sure.” Case makes good music, even if it isn’t the sort of thing I listen to on my own, and we’d been curious about Wits for a while. In their case, encouraging your audience to live-tweet is great viral marketing.

It was good show. In fact, it was nearly tailored to my interests. The comedy bits were highly surreal, Case and Hogan had some very frank things to say about living in poverty and are funny themselves, there was the appliance guy who chalked everything up to angels, and I got to see a Minnesota public radio audience try to figure out what to do during an Iron Maiden sing-along.

Then there was the comedy guest. I knew of Rob Delaney from Twitter, of course. He’s one of those people I don’t have to follow because everyone I do follow is always retweeting him. I’ve enjoyed his work enough that I thought it was cool he’d be on the Wits that we’d see, but I’ve never felt compelled to see his stand-up or anything like that.

Then John Moe interviewed him.

Well, hello humanist who worries about how his comedy affects other people, can make jokes about his wife that don’t put her down, and who doesn’t flinch from talking about addiction and mental health. Yes. Yes, I think I like you.

One odd/interesting thing about Delaney is that he always sounds like he’s lying to you with a great deal of sincerity. In fact, he stopped in the middle of an answer to clarify that all his answers that evening would be truthful. Even given that, it was hard not to feel like he was joking. So I read a bit after I got home. That’s when I discovered that it is possible to make a distinction between being a feminist and being a humanist that isn’t an excuse for inaction.

And I don’t feel like a feminist as I write this. I feel like a humanist. I am a comedian, and I am and will remain a consumer of comedy until the day I die, and I know in my bones that the funniest shit in the world was, is and will remain women and men working together.

Did I mention I like him? Then there’s his approach to talking about mental illness. His mental illness.

As a comedian, I talk about comedy all the time, every day, with comedians and noncomedians. There is a popular belief, in and out of comedy, that comedians tell jokes and endeavor to make others laugh as a means of treating the pain they feel inside; that depression and drug and alcohol abuse plague the world of comedy. Is this true? For me, the answer happens to be yes. Among the first things I do each morning is take two prescription depression medications, Lexapro and Cymbalta. Right before or right after that, I post my first joke of the day on Twitter. I take the medication because I deal with severe suicidal depression and have for years. It has come close to killing me two times in the past eight years: once before I became a professional comedian, and once after. I post the jokes on Twitter because making people laugh makes me feel really, really fucking good.

Yeah, I like this guy. And he really can talk about what he does–well.

So Rob Delaney has another Twitter follower. He won’t notice me among his 800,000+ other followers, but that isn’t the point. I’m telling you all this in case you don’t already know that Delaney is a feminist, humanist who manages to laugh about mental illness without making it laughable. You know, in case you’re looking for a new comedian to follow.

You can listen to the podcast version of the Wits show here.

]]> http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/05/17/a-comedy-crush/feed/ 2