Age of Kali – Misandry in India from A Voice for Men »« An Article Hiatus

You are Judged by the Company You Keep

If you quote KKK quotes and hang out with a racist, we would assume you are a racist. Okay, the racist may be “family” but you know that you should speak out against it. You may even argue about it. You may even stop being friendly because you personally don’t think the Dutch are subhuman but your hypothetical sister does.

Because you are judged by the company you keep and by not speaking out. You may disagree with something but have to keep your mouth shut, but that just means you are supporting the thing you disagree with in the first place. If a child INSISTS on sticking his fingers into a electrical socket disagreeing with him but not telling him to stop is pretty much agreeing with him is it not?

You are always judged by the company you keep and I have slowly come to notice that the company that many naysayers against Free Thought Blogs and the like are not acceptable. The argument one individual from the slymepit made was “free speech”, well we have free speech here.

Watch this. I think Atheism Plus is heavily mishandled and it’s pure utilisation of safe zones makes debate and discourse impossible. In addition it takes a very very protectionist attitude to both culture and a purely western attitude towards feminism which is simply not universal or applicable in every situation. However due to the lack of any actual method of discourse there is no way to create active change through it. It is unfortunately a pure academic form of feminism and is unsuitable for punching out gender discrepancies in third world nations. It’s participants have little actual experience in field work and from experience are unwilling to defer to anyone who is outside the sphere of their security nor were they willing to grasp that principles are great if you can afford to have them. I have even spoken out explicitly against their cultural/race aspect of their movement because a lot of it tries to paint culture with a big fuck off brush rather than realising individual nuance.

Oh look! It’s a stance I have stated before I moved here. At no point was I ever hassled by the “FTBullies”. In fact my interviewer was Stephanie Zvan and when I specifically mentioned my apprehension with Atheism Plus we discussed precisely the above statement.

Oh look it’s genuine criticism of the movement. I have also disagreed with people like Taslima on Prostitution and Ian Cromwell on race. But the thing is through it all we have been specific about what we dislike about the other’s work. We haven’t stooped to personal attacks (Although I did offer to have a “shout racial slurs at each other till we both lose” contest with Ian),

I am not part of A+, but neither am I in the camp of the Slymepit because of the company they keep.

Stephanie Zvan survived sexual assault. But she was drunk. Oh noes! The Slut! When a Man is Drunk and Gets Laid He Taketh Responsibility! Right boys?

Many Slymepitters are represented at AVfM. Reap and Wooly Bumblebee and Astrokid who you may remember from my take on their work.

But because of free speech they get to say what they like. Free speech is fine, in fact that’s why I am examining a more flexible comment policy because I think I can do better (Hah! Suck it popular bloggers! My comments threads may be relatively empty but they will be elegant!) to give everyone the best of both worlds.

HOWEVER… The usage of this particular article by Wooly Bumblebee has crossed a line. In particular because THIS is precisely the same arguments people made when the young woman who was raped in Delhi. It was also made by AVfM. AVfM supports Indian MRAs who have blamed the rapes in India on women rather than the men.

“Coyote ugly.” It’s a phrase men use to describe the experience of waking up, hungover as shit, in bed next to a girl so ugly you’d rather chew your arm off than have her stir. Yep, another night of too many shooters and very poor judgement. Well played, tequila.

It must be Tequila’s fault!

Understand the difference between action and consent. You cannot give consent when you are drunk. You can barely order pizza yet are assuming you can give realistic consent? Yes both of you may be drunk but if both of you are drunk and want to have sex then both of you will have sex. What people who get drunk and are raped are discussing are women getting date raped through drugs like GHB or just plain old not being sober enough to put up a coordinated defence against a much stronger assailant.

You are however responsible for your actions when drunk. It’s just that simple.

I’m willing to bet that every single varsity athlete or high status (medicine, engineering, computer science) male on any given college campus has had the experience. Why? Because they get hunted. All the time. By women. You see these guys staggering bleary-eyed into the dorm rooms the next morning, bro-punching their friends and saying “Dude, how could you let me do that?”

Because women are all hungry like the wolf?

You want to know something funny? At no point has anyone ever thrown themselves at me because of my degrees. It’s always been because of my winning personality and sense of humour. I used to get women to sleep with me through the art of conversation, wit and being honest about things. It’s never been about me or my degree or my athletic skill. It’s always been because I am genuinely nice. Now I have noticed women who do sleep with these guys and if that brings them happiness then godspeed ladies, but more often than not it’s because they buy into the stupid Alpha male concept and forget that confidence isn’t arrogance. Real confidence is knowing what your limitations are. And we all have limitations. Real confidence isn’t denigrating other people but letting them shine too.

Whoever wrote that article is insulting to EVERY gender. No.1 Women aren’t Gold Diggers/Star Fuckers (Seriously? Doctor Hunting isn’t a thing), No. 2 that buys into the notion of Alpha Males which is just moronic as fuck because the “Alpha Stereotype” does poorly in medicine. It’s a team effort, if you hack your team off they will kill your credibility and your career. You can be an amazing doctor but you are nothing without your support. No. 3 you assume all men are dicks and cannot control their drinks nor who they fuck when drunk.

How could you let me do that is the hallmark of a man who cannot take responsibility for his actions. I am not your keeper, I will take care of you when sick but if you insist on doing things you consider distasteful then it’s your damn fault. I will try and field terrible decision fall outs but I won’t be held responsible for you insisting on doing something. Sleeping with a “ugly” person is not dangerous nor is it disgusting, it’s just you shagging someone who isn’t attractive.

The article goes on an on… Stephanie fields it much better than me. I would have sworn at people a lot more.

Comments

  1. julian says

    If you quote KKK quotes and hang out with a racist, we would assume you are a racist. Okay, the racist may be “family” but you know that you should speak out against it. You may even argue about it. You may even stop being friendly because you personally don’t think the Dutch are subhuman but your hypothetical sister does.

    To save everyone some time here’s the only rebuttal anyone ever has for this

    Association fallacy. Really that’s all they have. Like someone who spams ad hom, or non sequitar there’s nothing else any of these people can say except “association fallacy.” Which is ridiculous because the opinion and views of the people we keep in our circle actual is a decent indicator of what our own views are or at least, what we’re comfortable with.

    My heart goes out Stephanie. Paden, Stefanelli and others have argued they have nothing against sexual assault survivors and yet, well, they keep back people like this.

  2. says

    Many Slymepitters are represented at AVfM. Reap and Wooly Bumblebee and Astrokid who you may remember from my take on their work.

    “Many”, and you list three. Wow, talk about a horde. Actually, you missed some, the number may be as high as ten. Hide your children.

    However, two can play at that game:

    Many FTB’ers agreed with Greg Laden when he both threatened and attempted to PSTD-trigger Justin Griffith. Therefore, judging you by “the company you keep”, it is justifiable to toss you into that bin, and assume that because you are also a part of FTB, you too support threatening people and triggering their PTSD.

    See how easy it is? It’s utter nonsense for the same reason your tarring of all the ‘pit (by the way, it’s mildew pit now. Keep up) as card carrying MRAs is.

    You spend a lot of time trying to show how FTB is not a hive mind, then you immediately march forth and declare the ‘pit to be a hive mind of MRAs. Good job there, not even a hint of self-awareness. Also, nice job of bragging about what a cocksman you are:

    You want to know something funny? At no point has anyone ever thrown themselves at me because of my degrees. It’s always been because of my winning personality and sense of humour. I used to get women to sleep with me through the art of conversation, wit and being honest about things. It’s never been about me or my degree or my athletic skill. It’s always been because I am genuinely nice. Now I have noticed women who do sleep with these guys and if that brings them happiness then godspeed ladies, but more often than not it’s because they buy into the stupid Alpha male concept and forget that confidence isn’t arrogance. Real confidence is knowing what your limitations are. And we all have limitations. Real confidence isn’t denigrating other people but letting them shine too.

    You are truly the ultra-feminist. Double word score for the swipe at women who choose to have sex with men you disapprove of, because they’re unable to tell the difference between “confident” men, (like you) and “arrogant” men, (not like you). I bet they’re real pleased you think they’re just too what, stupid? to make the”proper” choice.

    You silver-tongued devil, I bet you have to make them take a number.

    Of course, you could actually just talk to the people in the ‘pit. But, since you know everything about everyone who posts there, I’m sure there’s no point.

    Oh and Julian, shouldn’t you be out snapping necks?

  3. julian says

    Many FTB’ers agreed with Greg Laden when he both threatened and attempted to PSTD-trigger Justin Griffith. Therefore, judging you by “the company you keep”, it is justifiable to toss you into that bin, and assume that because you are also a part of FTB, you too support threatening people and triggering their PTSD.

    No.

    That was Laden being personally abusive to one person. It is not comparable to the situation presented in the OP. Had Greg Laden gone overboard and gone on a rant about all us baby killers out there doing Uncle Sam’s bidding they’d be more analogous. Even then this would have to be something Laden is known for, something he does regularly, not something he did in a fit of abusive rage toward someone else. He would have to have built almost a career out of it.

    You spend a lot of time trying to show how FTB is not a hive mind, then you immediately march forth and declare the ‘pit to be a hive mind of MRAs.

    So… do you read what people write are do you just read a sentence here and there and fill in the blanks?

  4. Jubal DiGriz says

    @3-

    I realize that this was directed at Julian, but every post I’ve seen from someone who associates themselves with Slymepit is petty, belligerent, and totally oblivious to the content of another point of view. It is not at all surprising that you have trouble attracting sympathy.

  5. sc_7fcd816dc7d5c9e72c65516e9f1f590e says

    Yea cause I suggested Stephanie might not be able to self-diagnose and should get some help to make sure she was really okay I’m a jerk right? When she was being a dick I called her on it, when she sounded like she might need some advice I gave her some from what I have learned. The problem is I am honest and Stephanie can’t handle it. It’s impossible for her to think I can call her a dick and still not wish her harm. That is a common problem but it is your problem not mine.. I’ll say this again even though few of my critics seem to possess the intelligence needed to understand it. You don’t know me. Stop acting like you do. My personality can not be summed up with one interaction, dispute, post, or even ten. I’m more complicated than that, quit acting like you are psychic and have knowledge about me you can’t possibly have.
    I gave AVfM an opportunity to present their viewpoint. I have an open invite to anyone who wishes to come on and do the same. I have specifically invited people I have had conflict with, like Stephanie Zvan. She refused, she said I don’t get it and she doesn’t have time. She has plenty of time to blog about me though doesn’t she? So far the only one to take me up on it is Oolon and I respect him for that. I don’t agree with him on all points but we had a conversation about it person to person. Is there something wrong with being willing to listen to any and all sides? That’s what I’ve been doing on my podcast for over 5 years. You don’t think everyone should have a voice? I don’t hide from interaction with people whether we agree or not.
    Your criticism of A+ is nice to see but I wonder how well your words would have been received a few months ago.
    I was unaware you had even made mention of me before now. I’m flattered.Funny how much it hadn’t had an effect isn’t it? You can just keep talking about me instead of to me I’m sure that will be helpful,

  6. says

    “Many”, and you list three.

    And Welch listed one. One, who we kicked out of FtB despite the fact that he was and is a personal friend to some of us. We stuck to our principles. You cannot possibly say we support his actions when we made the most severe possible sanction against him.

    You bozos can’t say the same.

  7. Jay says

    “Oh look! It’s a stance I have stated before I moved here. At no point was I ever hassled by the “FTBullies”. In fact my interviewer was Stephanie Zvan and when I specifically mentioned my apprehension with Atheism Plus we discussed precisely the above statement.”

    Oh look, it’s the bootstrappy fallacy. Also known as the “it didn’t happen to me, it couldn’t happen to you” fallacy.

  8. says

    #6, Reap, yeah we did have a chat but really what was gained? Despite Al reading out a Reuters report on the changing meaning of misogyny over the last 30 years you still assert you *know* what it means and its “hate all women”. We spoke about using slurs like bitch to describe women and my unfortunate use of racial and homophobic slurs as analogy to misogynistic slurs led you all to agree that calling your black friends nigga and gay friends faggot with no complaints mean those words are fine as well! Bit of a *facepalm* moment for me as the Slymepit danced around that question…

    Where do you start a conversation with someone who is so far from your view point? At some point you need to accept there is no agreement possible between you and the “FtB feminist” faction. Carry on exercising your free speech and realise you’ll get criticised for it when people disagree. I know PZ has a larger platform than you, but really are any of your fans going to care that he dislikes you? Unfortunately you’ll probably get more as a result!

    … Sorry Avi, derail, have read the whole post unlike Welch. Not sure how you can say there is no method of discourse over at the A+ forum? Have you been over and started a discussion? I’m sure the members would appreciate it, I post a little myself and see plenty of discourse. There are rules, but when they come down to don’t be an insensitive arse and even I manage to keep to that I don’t see why you cannot. Or have you been on the reddit A+, as I’ve not been there….

  9. hjhornbeck says

    Welch @3:

    Many FTB’ers agreed with Greg Laden when he both threatened and attempted to PSTD-trigger Justin Griffith.

    Ah, Welch, I missed you and your lyin’ ways. You do realize that most people on FtB actually DISAGREED with Laden, right? That’s part of the reason why he was kicked of. But of course, that doesn’t fit your narrative, and so you happily reality to suit what you think it should be.

    Ooo, and Paden’s here too!

    When she was being a dick I called her on it, when she sounded like she might need some advice I gave her some from what I have learned.

    You’ve learned that calling someone a “bitch” repeatedly is good advice? Suddenly, I understand you a lot better.

    I have an open invite to anyone who wishes to come on and do the same. I have specifically invited people I have had conflict with, like Stephanie Zvan.

    That’s the same tactic used by a lot of creationists, actually: invite skeptics on, then change the rules and shout at them to keep them off-balance. What’s so bad about writing your own blog post, taking her complaints point-by-point and demonstrating why they don’t hold water? Why would you rather put her in a position where you have the upper hand?

    Back to Welch, though, for a final observation:

    You spend a lot of time trying to show how FTB is not a hive mind, then you immediately march forth and declare the ‘pit to be a hive mind of MRAs.

    I used to be quite critical of Myer’s near-insta-ban of anyone who says they’re from, or can be traced back to, the ‘Pit. I’ve since begun debating and reading what is said in the ‘Pit and by people who claim to be from there, and there is a remarkable similarity between them all. To a person, they assert their privilege, cannot take criticism, and have difficulty making a good rational argument. Something about that place changes a person, strips away their skepticism and ability for free thought, and turns them into hyper-sensitive yet aggressive fools. The only notable differences I’ve found are their willingness to lie to make a point, and the grammar and vocabulary they use.

    That’s it. I haven’t found an exception yet, and I occasionally snoop just to challenge this observation. The ‘Pit is far more of a hivemind than FtB, from what I’ve seen, and now I view a near-insta-ban as rather sensible.

  10. Astrokid.NJ says

    AVfM supports Indian MRAs who have blamed the rapes in India on women rather than the men.

    LOL.. dude, what a ridiculous statement. Such sweeping generalizations are made only by “cupcakes”. havent you embarassed yourself enough last time when I had to school you in basic reading and comprehension skills? I hope you understand the difference between 6 months and life imprisonment at least now.
    Have you realized by now that Reap Paden isnt an MRA, and that article was written by a woman called JudgyBitch and not WBB? she has her own blog as well. She’s the one spitting at certain women and certain kinds of “rape”. You can take it up with her, you know.

    Anyways.. I spend very little time on the slimepit.. Its a good source of what shenanigans are going on at the higher levels around here.. although the signal to noise ratio is somewhat low for my liking. I can live with it though. MRAs have very little reason to mess with the Oh-We-Are-Smarter-Than-Rest-Of-Humanity “freethinkers”. Here’s a comment I posted elsewhere last month.

    Astrokid.NJ
    December 11, 2012
    It was a shock-statement, not a serious statement of scientific fact, and it’s unfair of Clint to be dismissive of Laden over such a triviality. Only the MRAs seem to take that statement seriously, and they, as a group, should be ignored whenever possible

    I am an MRA, and also an atheist who spends time in the atheist community. I will let you in on an open secret. MRAs by and large arent proactive about what the feminists do in your community.. i.e they dont butt in and argue against Laden et al.. you know why? the rest of the atheist community is doing it, spearheaded by the slimepit in the beginning.. while we sit back and LOL.
    dude.. it really takes a lot of knowledge and time to figure out what exactly is going on in society, and the anti-FTB atheists are still in the first or second leg.
    As James Onen (allegedly) said “Rebecca Watson has created more MRAs than Paul Elam ever could”.
    Old timer MRAs have a maxim.. “we dont go out to them (i.e those who can see through feminist lies). we let them come to us”.
    Good luck “ignoring us”.

    Stop chasing ghosts..it will do you good.
    And maybe take on criticism of feminists.. from ex-feminist and women’s rights activist Madhu Kishwar .. who says Feminism in India has no integrity. You can’t trust it

    This is what she says in her article from early 90s.. “Why I am NOT a feminist”

    I have often been asked reproachfully by feminists: “How can you refuse to join the campaign on such and such issue if you are a feminist?” But, on many important issues concerning women, I often find myself differing more with current feminist opinion than with other political groups not claiming to be feminist. One way of resisting being dragged into currently fashionable feminist issues on which I hold a differing position was to learn to say: “I do not call myself a feminist, though I am committed to the struggle for women’s rights. Let us discuss the concrete facts of the case and consider the pros and cons of the approach being proposed and find out if we share any common ground, instead of starting out by assuming an overall solidarity or agreement just because we all assume we are feminists.”

    See? Apparently non-feminists are lot more sensible w.r.t women’s issues than feminists LOL

    She spits at the kinds of stuff you rail about.. Domestic Violence BLAH fucking Blah.. “Men Bad, women victims”. She pooh-poohs feminist statistics. Trigger Warning LOL: Your commentariat (how wise some of them were when I commented here last time.. Ah.. the delight) .. their heads might explode if they are exposed to such counter evidence.
    INDIAN GENDER JUSTICE Madhu kishwar vs renuka chaudhary Indian men better than western-CNNIBN 8 mar11

  11. Astrokid.NJ says

    And if AVFM is so bad, why does Erin Pizzey say this? Dont tell me she’s a handmaiden of the patriarchy. I am sure you can find the source, so I will skip the URL (and see if this comment goes through without getting stuck in the queue). Senator Anne Cools of Canada also talks pretty much the same way.. not about AVFM.. but about DV etc. Why?

    From Erin Pizzey, AVfM Editor-at-Large
    I did an interview with Dean Esmay recently and while we were working together and I spent time looking at the web site A Voice for Men. As I read, I became more and more convinced that I had found my place. After talking at length with Paul Elam, I agreed that I will be able to write and to join in with the many contributors and readers as an advisor and editor on this site. AVfM is an inclusive site and after all the hate filled rhetoric I have endured for so many years I feel as if I am coming home.

    It is now two thousand and thirteen. Forty-two years ago I opened the first shelter/refuge in the world in a tiny, derelict house in the streets of Chiswick, West London. In those years I had a vision about a woman’s movement that would work for all women in harmony with men.

  12. says

    I have even spoken out explicitly against their cultural/race aspect of their movement because a lot of it tries to paint culture with a big fuck off brush rather than realising individual nuance.

    Oh look! It’s a stance I have stated before I moved here. At no point was I ever hassled by the “FTBullies”. In fact my interviewer was Stephanie Zvan and when I specifically mentioned my apprehension with Atheism Plus we discussed precisely the above statement.

    Oh look it’s genuine criticism of the movement. I have also disagreed with people like Taslima on Prostitution and Ian Cromwell on race. But the thing is through it all we have been specific about what we dislike about the other’s work. We haven’t stooped to personal attacks (Although I did offer to have a “shout racial slurs at each other till we both lose” contest with Ian),

    I have had the exact opposite experience. The thing is, though, perhaps they have reason to doubt my veracity. It is still unacceptable to stereotype and belittle anyone, out of hand, without acknowledging what they are saying, or trying to say.
    But, and it’s a big one, I’ve pulled that shit, quite regularly, myself.

    My point being, that I see very little effort at trying to understand each other, and too much time shutting down all hope of establishing any kind of rapport, or at least the right of others to voice their opinion, and immediately slamming the door on any chance of meaningful discussion. It is very bad, from what I have experienced.

    That said, no one knows what the other person, or group, has been through – I know I certainly don’t. It is pointless to tell another person what they are really thinking, and trying to accomplish, and then pigeon holing them and telling them to go fuck themselves, or get castrated, or whatever.

    The point you make about group-think, Avicenna, is that it can produce an extremely constrained view of everything

    I have even spoken out explicitly against their cultural/race aspect of their movement because a lot of it tries to paint culture with a big fuck off brush rather than realizing individual nuance.

    Almost exclusively, in my experience. But, as I just said above, I suffer from confirmation bias, especially when it gets intensely emotional. I probably do not come across the way I think I do, and it may be the same for everyone else. Bear in mind, I’m not talking about slymepitters, or that fucking insipid article by Bumblebee. I’m talking about what goes on here at FTb, among other places, where we are probably on the same page, in general.

    Oh look! It’s a stance I have stated before I moved here. At no point was I ever hassled by the “FTBullies”. In fact my interviewer was Stephanie Zvan and when I specifically mentioned my apprehension with Atheism Plus we discussed precisely the above statement.

    That’s decent, that’s how it should be, In My Opinion.

    I would think it takes time to adapt to the realities of their situation, and it takes time for things to settle down, and work themselves out. Any new group of people getting together to fight for a particular cause, surely must go through growing pains, and gain the necessary experience to feel, if not comfortable, at least familiar enough with the situation to in order to reach out beyond the initial group.

    I just want to convey the attitude of both being less defensive/being more open, and primarily, that we can effin well make a modest effort to listen to each other. At least initially.

    Of course, once you’ve tried that with someone, and you get nothing but belligerence in return, well, they had their fucking chance, didn’t they?

    [I'm probably not even talking about the same shite you folks are. That wouldn't surprise me! ;) ]

  13. julian says

    Soooo… when did statements from an authority become more important than arguments and evidence? Like, I mean, I’m we’ve got doctorates in biology, anthropology, the geo sciences ect telling us answers in genesis s a good site.

  14. A Hermit says

    “Rebecca Watson has created more MRAs than Paul Elam ever could”.

    No, she just innocently turned over the rock they were hiding under.

    As for Paul Elam, his post on rape victims in which he calls them “conniving bitches” who are “begging to be rapes” kind of tells us everything we need to know about him…http://manboobz.com/2010/11/14/paul-elams-vanishing-post-blaming-and-mocking-rape-victims/

    Why any rational, thinking human being would want to associate with that asshole is beyond me.

  15. Astrokid.NJ says

    Soooo… when did statements from an authority become more important than arguments and evidence? Like, I mean, I’m we’ve got doctorates in biology, anthropology, the geo sciences ect telling us answers in genesis s a good site.

    I knew some nitwit would bring up arg from authority, and evidence blah blah. Yeah.. you are the paragons of evidence based reasoning. Remember why some science20.com folks (Hank Campbell, Sasha V) absolutely abhor FTB, and were happy to see them fuck off from scienceblogs?

    Its an argument-from-expertise-in-relevant-field where more experts concur than not, while yours is an argument-from-nitwit.

  16. julian says

    Its an argument-from-expertise-in-relevant-field

    That only works when there’s an actual argument backing it and when there’s actual consensus in a field about a articular topic. For example, vaccine safety and effectiveness. What you’re doing is the opposite. People point to several very problematic and misogynistic stances taken by AVfM as well as their openly misogynistic and gender essentialist speech. Rather than rebut them you introduce a general opinion about something else by a past expert who hasn’t been relevant in the field for some time. (Not to mention other issues with UK feminism but that’s a different topic.)

  17. says

    No, she just innocently turned over the rock they were hiding under.

    I’m sure it’s a bit of both. I thought she was kind of dismissive, and I find that the people that think of her as pristine in her mannerisms and attitudes, and leaps to her defense at the first mention of a differing opinion, or criticism of something she did, by insisting that you just crawled out from under a rock, as just as dismissive, if not more so.

    She’s not perfect, by any means, in the way she comes across, because no one is. Sure, I think many beetles and centipedes got far to defensive and over the top, but I, personally, had reservations about her presentation.

    That certainly doesn’t mean that she meant to be that way, or was even aware that others might not be comfortable with everything. I think her efforts and motives are mostly sound, but hey, I know that sometimes mine are far from excusable!

    In an odd way, saying she just innocently turned over the rock they/I was hiding under, she still did it. As a matter of fact, I shouldn’t even be talking about rocks, and if people are hiding under them, because that is a purely speculative, and loaded, way to describe anything.

    I’m not angry, or put out, by what you said, A Hermit. I just wanted to point out a potentially unfair stance, that of black and white thinking.
    I know I do it all the time. I’m not judging you at all, I usually agree very much with what you say. It just seems to me that there is a lot of the “you’re either for us, or against us” attitude.

    Holy shit, I just read what Paul Elam wrote. There’s someone that slithered out of a tailings pond. That is hate speech, and he must be awfully impotent, so to speak, if he has so much difficulty with the reality that no one made him do anything. Only childish emotional cripples think that way.

    I want to say that to his face, actually!

    Better go,

  18. Astrokid.NJ says

    That only works when there’s an actual argument backing it and when there’s actual consensus in a field about a articular topic. For example, vaccine safety and effectiveness.What you’re doing is the opposite. People point to several very problematic and misogynistic stances taken by AVfM as well as their openly misogynistic and gender essentialist speech

    misogyny blah blah.. so what else is new?
    So you feminists who have become a big joke in the atheist community.. as well as other communities one after the other.. your entire academic foundation is being laughed at.. Barbara Kay: The face of Identity Studies on campus
    ‘Defend the Humanities’–A Dishonest Slogan by a wide variety of learned people as well..

    last time I was here.. I had to school avicenna (and some of his commentariat) on basic reading and comprehension skills.. You think YOU you are capable of evaluating AVFM, and we need to explain ourselves to you? LOL we just LOL at you..

  19. A Hermit says

    “I’m sure it’s a bit of both. I thought she was kind of dismissive, and I find that the people that think of her as pristine in her mannerisms and attitudes, and leaps to her defense at the first mention of a differing opinion, or criticism of something she did, by insisting that you just crawled out from under a rock, as just as dismissive, if not more so.”

    I don’t think anyone is “pristine in their mannerisms or attitudes” but the idea that Watson is somehow to blame for the wave of misogyny and hate we’re seeing lately is just ludicrous. If people don;t like her or disagree with some argument she’ s made that’s fine, but to say that she is creating MRA’s looks like an exercise in victim blaming to me.

    All she said was “guys don’t do that” (which looked to me like a reasonable, positive, gentle piece of advice.) Anyone who is prompted by that innocuous little statement to run off and join Paul Elam’s “He-man Woman Haters Club” has some issues to begin with, don’t you think?

  20. julian says

    What a remarkable reply. However will I respond?

    Probably by ignoring you. ave a pleasant life. Or not. None of my concern

  21. julian says

    All she said was “guys don’t do that” (which looked to me like a reasonable, positive, gentle piece of advice.) Anyone who is prompted by that innocuous little statement to run off and join Paul Elam’s “He-man Woman Haters Club” has some issues to begin with, don’t you think?

    I think that’s two different problems.

    You have how dismissive Watson and others have been to concerns about some feminist positions, you have how uncharitable many of us have been and you have the frequent insistence that everyone should regard themselves as feminist. (which goes back to ignoring the many legitimate some people may have)

    That as been very alienating towards people. It’s pushed them away from skepchick, away from some of the blogs at FtB and away from the frontline fights.

  22. A Hermit says

    I can understand perhaps some people losing interest in following the Skepchicks or FtB over some quibble about feminism (and most of the “concerns” I’ve seen are little more than that and don’t merit much more than dismissal), but the assertion I was objecting to above was that she was causing men to become MRA’s. I think that’s just preposterous.

    It’s like the baseless charge that got D.J. Grothe into trouble (and touched off the latest round of lunacy); the idea that women talking about harassment was to blame for lower registrations at TAM.

    Women talking about sexism isn’t the problem, (even if they occasionally get impatient and appear to be “dismissive” to you at times…) Sexism is the problem.

  23. leni says

    “Coyote ugly.” It’s a phrase men use to describe the experience of waking up, hungover as shit, in bed next to a girl so ugly you’d rather chew your arm off than have her stir. Yep, another night of too many shooters and very poor judgement. Well played, tequila.

    I find it astonishing that these idiots don’t think the ugly girl in bed with them is thinking the same damn thing about them.

    I’ve made my fair share of bad drunk choices. Yet somehow it never occurred to me that I needed a new way to describe unattractive so I could mock and humiliate the not-so-great looking men I slept with. In order to do that I’d have to think I was entitled to access to the best looking men even though, mysteriously, those guys were not the ones coming home with me. How far does one’s head need to be up one’s ass to not know why that is?

    misogyny blah blah.. so what else is new?

    That’s kinda the point.

    And if AVFM is so bad, why does Erin Pizzey say this?

    Wtf is Erin Pizzey? Wait, don’t bother answering that because I don’t actually care. Because it doesn’t matter who she is. She made a bad choice, in my opinion, as did everyone else who associates with that site. Whatever the case, the fact that some random woman doesn’t think they are so bad doesn’t change the fact that I do.

  24. julian says

    Erin Pizzey is a UK feminist. She started the first women’s shelter in the UK (if memory serves me right) back in mid 20th century. She’s editor or something AVfM.

    @A Hermit

    No argument there. Even if you dislike Watson (I do) there’s no reason to do or say hallf the things said about her at SIN, AVfM or elsewhere. Hell, even she were Sarah Palin I’d object to the sexist shit people have been saying about her. (As a side note, liberals seem very ok with hateful, sexist and transphobic insults towards women they don’t like.)

  25. A Hermit says

    (As a side note, liberals seem very ok with hateful, sexist and transphobic insults towards women they don’t like.)

    SOME liberals, maybe. Not this one, Not most of the liberals I know…and none of the feminists…

    Let’s not play this false equivalence game here, OK? There is nothing like the torrent of shit that comes down on feminist women going back the other way…http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2013/01/why-so-fussed/

  26. julian says

    No idea what false equivalence game you’re talking about but I can see you don’t want to continue this further.

  27. leni says

    Erin Pizzey is a UK feminist. She started the first women’s shelter in the UK (if memory serves me right) back in mid 20th century. She’s editor or something AVfM.

    That’s unfortunate. But like I said, I think think it’s unfortunate that anyone would associate themselves with that site, much less contribute to it.

  28. A Hermit says

    Erin Pizzey might have done a lot to raise awareness of domestic abuse, but I’m not sure “feminist” describes her anymore…

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/feminist-pioneer-s-rethink-a-woman-s-place-is-in-the-home-1.826348

    She is one of feminism’s pioneers and founder of the UK’s first refuge for victims of domestic violence, but after decades of fighting for women’s rights Erin Pizzey has come to a startling conclusion: women should stay at home and look after the children while men go out to work.

    Speaking of false equivalences, Pizzey is very popular with the MRA crowd because she has apparently bought into the myth that men are victimized by women at the same rate as women are beaten by the men in their lives; a contention not born out by any serious examination of the literature on the subject.

    http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics.html

  29. julian says

    That’s unfortunate. But like I said, I think think it’s unfortunate that anyone would associate themselves with that site, much less contribute to it.

    Likewise. I console myself by remembering feminism isn’t a monolith and that the spectrum of beliefs and views encompass everything from the benign to the deplorable.

  30. says

    A Hermit =

    All she said was “guys don’t do that” (which looked to me like a reasonable, positive, gentle piece of advice.) Anyone who is prompted by that innocuous little statement to run off and join Paul Elam’s “He-man Woman Haters Club” has some issues to begin with, don’t you think?

    That’s exactly it. Anyone that gets so bent out of shape over a ten second aside to the main discussion, must be very weak. I mean, can’t you take it and just move on, whether you have a proper interpretation or not?
    The instant barrage of condemnation and judgement that they launched shows how fragile their egos are.

    These types are basically terrorists, although thaqt may be to srtong ofr an expression, but their intention is to intimidate. Actually, anyone that resorts to using threats of rape, or just generally comfortable with that idea, is dangerous. I don’t think there is anything so utterly depraved and sick as their comfort with, or desire to,. rape.
    That’s what terrorists do, their very existence mean always having to be on guard with the random acts of extreme violence always being a threat.

    Fuck, am I pissed off, enraged is too light a term, whit what they have perpetrated with Natalie. I have to stop now because I am getting to riled up. The fucking chickenshit miscreants. Holy shit, talk to you later, A Hermit, but I should take a break. There is nothing I hate more than violence, and/or using it as a threat, as I am sure most people here do. Yeah, see you in a bit. Thanks, I even don’t feel so uptight about the rock analogy. Actually, she was just walking by, so they used that as excuse to crawl out. Okay, that’s it!

  31. says

    And Welch listed one. One, who we kicked out of FtB despite the fact that he was and is a personal friend to some of us. We stuck to our principles. You cannot possibly say we support his actions when we made the most severe possible sanction against him.

    You bozos can’t say the same.

    Last I checked, the set of “company you keep” would include the set of “personal friend(s)”.

    It helps, it really, really helps, if when trying to prove me wrong, you don’t prove my points for me. Perhaps you should wander over to the English Department at UMinn, and see if there’s a student available to intern for you, so that you might be taught some of these basic concepts.

  32. says

    AH, saying, ” over some quibble about feminism” is inflammatory. That is where most of this shit starts, and it is not an offhand remark whatsoever. You know that it is insulting, and being like that shows your unwillingness to listen.
    That is almost entirely the core of this attitude of all or nothing, moral, or depraved posturing. That was uncalled for, because it is a blatant expression of the idea that you do not respect what the other person feels, or has to say.

    That’s what it looks to me like, and I know how demeaning a seemingly offhand remark like that can be. It conveys the idea that whatever objections the other person raises, or concerns they have, is not even worth the bother of paying attention to, that they are, at best, an annoyance.

    even if you didn’t mean it as a rebuke, or see it as one, shows a lack of consideration.

    When I am at my best, in an argument, I like to slip little insults in while maintaining my focus on the primary point of disagreement. I know damn well that I am being slimy when I do it, because I am purposely sending a mixed message in order to obfuscate my remark. Then I can say, “What? That’s not what I was saying!” and reinforce the other part of my message, where I seem to agree with my opponent.

    I don’t know if you’ve been married, or in a committed relationship, but these types of disguised insults start to become regular, you relationship is fucked.

    That kind of write-off is blatantly disrespectful, and you’re not fooling anyone when this becomes a habit.

    I have to back off from my accusation that remarks like this are always on purpose, but even if you didn’t mean anything by it, maintaining an attitude that the other persons objections are always trivial, is an extremely effective method of shutting down any hope of communication.

    This is exactly why many people have difficulty believing that A+, in general, are open to reason.

    That is how it comes across, to a lot of people, because that type of communication is dismissive, and degrading, right from the word go. Only by acknowledging the other persons right to have their opinion genuinely considered, if you are insisting that yours be heard and respected, can we get past this, in my opinion, insipid squabbling. When there is lot’s of fighting over otherwise relatively minor disagreements, it is almost the First Law of Relationships, that something serious underneath, is the source of the vitriol.

    It’s almost a universal understanding, that in exclusive relationships, like marriage, when couples fight over money, it is really about something else. At least it indicates that finances are not the only sign of trouble.

    I know I am generalizing here, and relying on commonly held assumptions to illuminate my point, but I think it is critically important that everyone take responsibility for the indiscretions that they commit, and not just blame the other person for being sensitive.

    I’m not trying to point anyone out, or consider any one incidence in particular, nor am I trying to imply that this stuff happens as a sort of default condition that all discussions around these issues here turn into, but it doesn’t take a whole bunch of this attitude to royally start to fuck things up.

    It is virtually suicidal for any cause to continue to engage in this all or nothing method of evaluation.

    I am sorry if anyone feels attacked when I say this, but telling anyone that isn’t solidly in agreement with your viewpoint, to fuck right off and don’t come back, because showing disagreement means that they must be the enemy, is the fucking purest of bullshit. This is about equal rights, and the problem of deeply ingrained attitudes that foster the disrespect and abuse of women. It isn’t about proving that your are superior to the imbecilic fuckwads, because they obviously just don’t ‘get it.’

    I am judging anyone in particular here, because I am strongly drawn into these types of arguments where the point is to make sure that the opponent knows they are fucking pieces of shit, as soon as I prove some part of their understanding is inferior. I love doing that, and I’ve had my ass royally kicked just as well.
    But this is not the time or place for this crap to happen much of the time. This is serious shit.

    This is something that I don’t want to happen, and that is to remain at the level of getting in fights, and baiting people in order to do it, to get the mutual vitriol flowing.

    Some people do honestly have to be called out this way, I have no problem with that. It’s the regularly occurring debasement of others, the insistence of belittling others concerns as trivial, that poison ability to succeed in attaining meaningful change.

    Maybe I am just sensitive myself, but I only want to draw attention to the principles at work here, not fault anyone. That would be the height of irony, I am sure! ;)

  33. says

    See here, “ You know that it is insulting, and being like that shows your unwillingness to listen. Telling A.H. what is up with him/her, is something that I hate being done to me, yet I wasn’t even aware that I do the exact same thing that I criticize in others.

    Sorry, A Hermit, that’s not right to do that to you. I am actually starting to realize that I do this a lot, myself. Jesus.

  34. says

    A Hermit:

    All she said was “guys don’t do that” (which looked to me like a reasonable, positive, gentle piece of advice.) Anyone who is prompted by that innocuous little statement to run off and join Paul Elam’s “He-man Woman Haters Club” has some issues to begin with, don’t you think?

    For people who are “enraged” by misrepresentations and elisions, it’s curious that you should ignore the entire context of the furore regarding Elevatorgate and just sum it up with four innocuous words. You and I both know (or actually I’m not sure you do now) that it wasn’t just about those four words, and I believe I told you this back on YouTube. It was a couple of weeks more until the shit hit the fan and most of the shit-stirring came from the community you endorse, what’s now called Freethought Blogs. PZ Myers, Stephanie Zvan, Ophelia Benson and so on at the forefront to make it more than an innocuous event, with four innocuous words, that was harmless and not a big deal at all — even according to Watson herself.

    However, because some people took offense to Watson’s use of “sexualising” in her video and yes, the offer for coffee, Watson also decided to stir the pot. Because drama and blog hits go well together, don’tcha know. This is well documented and the documentation can be found exactly where I told you to look the last time. That is, unless you still reject evidence given to you and think it’s some kind of propaganda – or perhaps you’re afraid that you’re so weakwilled, you’ll suddenly transform yourself into a misogynist upon viewing its vile contents, and that to get rid of it you’ll have to subject yourself to some hideous form of therapy. Like that scene in Clockwork Orange.

    Anyway, it’s amusing that the commenters here eagerly make empty assertions about members of the Slymepit allegedly making a wide berth around women (despite the fact that many on the ‘pit are married to women, women they care for and many of the members on the ‘pit are women [Or pardon, should that be 'chillgirls' or 'sister punishers'? 'Gender traitors'? I'm not privy to the preferred nomenclature].) The Slymepit is, of course, not the misogynist, sexist, racist, callously murderous and acid-slinging haven many members here are keen to assume. It’s nothing like it at all.

    There is the occasional swearword bandied about (although I’m told that swearwords are not exactly foreign here, either – especially not the word ‘fuck’) and maybe a bit of gender-neutral slurs (since they’re not used to slander anyone because of their gender) but other than that, our views of social justice, women’s rights are similar to yours. Not exactly the same, obviously. We kind of want women to be treated as adults and equals and not the professional, helpless victims that many of you infer they should be.

    Indeed, I thought I knew the depths of censorship and political correctness by the news networks, but I was wrong. The regulars at FTB have taught me that the depths of censorship and political correctness knows no bounds.

  35. says

    For people who are “enraged” by misrepresentations and elisions, it’s curious that you should ignore the entire context of the furore regarding Elevatorgate and just sum it up with four innocuous words. You and I both know (or actually I’m not sure you do now) that it wasn’t just about those four words, and I believe I told you this back on YouTube. It was a couple of weeks more until the shit hit the fan and most of the shit-stirring came from the community you endorse, what’s now called Freethought Blogs. PZ Myers, Stephanie Zvan, Ophelia Benson and so on at the forefront to make it more than an innocuous event, with four innocuous words, that was harmless and not a big deal at all — even according to Watson herself.

    The argument was that it was a poor place to try and hit on someone. It’s universally regarded as a poor place. It was a tad creepy and while harmless was indicative of a slight problem in the atheist community. This was not as bad as say “the geek community” or other places like the security and hacking communities. BUT it was bad. Saying you are not as bad as say “Islam” for sexism so not doing anything about the little issues you have is stupid.

    However, because some people took offense to Watson’s use of “sexualising” in her video and yes, the offer for coffee, Watson also decided to stir the pot. Because drama and blog hits go well together, don’tcha know. This is well documented and the documentation can be found exactly where I told you to look the last time. That is, unless you still reject evidence given to you and think it’s some kind of propaganda – or perhaps you’re afraid that you’re so weakwilled, you’ll suddenly transform yourself into a misogynist upon viewing its vile contents, and that to get rid of it you’ll have to subject yourself to some hideous form of therapy. Like that scene in Clockwork Orange.

    I have tended to notice the opposite. I have had more blog hits for good writing than for “drama”. It’s easy to stir up drama. Watch…

    Fuck Man United… See instant controversy. No Rebecca pointed out that she didn’t like the way men treated women at conferences. As pure eye candy to be hit on. There is sexism in atheism and the entire freaking AVfM and MRA contingent proves it. For fuck’s sake man you have people from the slymepit no less defending the culture of India where rape and sexual harassment abounds to the point of it being a fact of life in some parts of India. Where women are routinely killed for not paying a dowry. Where women don’t get healthcare, education, food… And you have people who are part of your movement support that culture and give excuses for it. How can you actively stand up and say that there is no grain of truth to the comments made by Atheism + and Watson? You may disagree with them but you have to admit that they are right.

    There is sexism in the atheist community and if we are to progress we have to ensure it stops. There is a reason more and more female geeks are coming to conventions. Because geeks are taking stands against sexism and they are pretty strong ones. We should LEARN from them.

    Anyway, it’s amusing that the commenters here eagerly make empty assertions about members of the Slymepit allegedly making a wide berth around women (despite the fact that many on the ‘pit are married to women, women they care for and many of the members on the ‘pit are women [Or pardon, should that be 'chillgirls' or 'sister punishers'? 'Gender traitors'? I'm not privy to the preferred nomenclature].) The Slymepit is, of course, not the misogynist, sexist, racist, callously murderous and acid-slinging haven many members here are keen to assume. It’s nothing like it at all.

    No it’s a forum in the vein of /b on 4Chan. Except /b occasionally threw up works of sheer genius (Such as the birth of Anonymous) while so far it’s just harassment and calling each other cunts. Now I understand the cultural differences also affect the word (it’s more of a term of endearment where I am from and hearing a little old lady refer to her two grand kids as a pair of daft cunts is pretty normal.) but we are on the internet, the sad truth is the majority of Internet denizens are Americans so we non americans have to cater to them in some way or else my comments will be filled with people outraged that I wish to bum a fag off them (asking for a cigarette).

    There is the occasional swearword bandied about (although I’m told that swearwords are not exactly foreign here, either – especially not the word ‘fuck’) and maybe a bit of gender-neutral slurs (since they’re not used to slander anyone because of their gender) but other than that, our views of social justice, women’s rights are similar to yours. Not exactly the same, obviously. We kind of want women to be treated as adults and equals and not the professional, helpless victims that many of you infer they should be.

    Except no one in A+ or FTB has said that. Even in my case where women are helpless victims in a lot of cases. Oh and as I said there is a difference in swear words. Damn It All To Hell is a lot more acceptable than Fuck.

    Indeed, I thought I knew the depths of censorship and political correctness by the news networks, but I was wrong. The regulars at FTB have taught me that the depths of censorship and political correctness knows no bounds.

    I don’t know if you understand blogs but each of these blogs is a private blog. We are free to run them as we see fit. Now I don’t know who the fuck you are but so far you haven’t broken any major rules because I have not yet DRAWN up a set of rules. I never had many comments on my work so I never had the need. Now with increasing traffic and comments and discussion I do have to place rules. If rules are in place and you repeatedly break them then you get banned.

    The same rules apply on the Slymepit. A lot of the “censorship” you get is because you don’t follow the rules.

  36. Hamish McBeth says

    @hjhornbeck

    “I used to be quite critical of Myer’s near-insta-ban of anyone who says they’re from, or can be traced back to, the ‘Pit. I’ve since begun debating and reading what is said in the ‘Pit and by people who claim to be from there, and there is a remarkable similarity between them all. To a person, they assert their privilege, cannot take criticism, and have difficulty making a good rational argument. Something about that place changes a person, strips away their skepticism and ability for free thought, and turns them into hyper-sensitive yet aggressive fools. The only notable differences I’ve found are their willingness to lie to make a point, and the grammar and vocabulary they use.”

    They are all individuals, I doubt your assertion that they all speak and act the same, but that is not so relevant(it would make it mighty easy to ban them if this were true). What is relevant is that any individual from there’s arguments can be dismissed and silenced simply because they have posted there. This ignores all rational argument that may come from someone, it ignores the stances they may or not take on certain subjects, it ignores everything of any value, except that they they can be traced to another site.

  37. says

    There is sexism in the atheist community and if we are to progress we have to ensure it stops. There is a reason more and more female geeks are coming to conventions. Because geeks are taking stands against sexism and they are pretty strong ones. We should LEARN from them.

    There is more3 than that that has to be addressed, and I say that elvatorgate has become a full fledged war everyone but ourselves.
    I don’t give a flying fuck that you(editorial) keep insisting that us, that voice the concerns about RW’s method. I’ll bet that the number of times people have been dictated to that are objections are nothing more than an inability to comprehend what actually went on, is greater than the number of sub atomic particles in the known universe.

    That is one of the most incendiary comments you can make to someone. Telling people that they are sadly mistaken, and they really only simpletons that can’t understand the important stuff, is a bloody inciteful thing to say, even once.

    But to exclusively be reaqcted to by being told what is really happening, and trust me, you don’t know enough to understand what is really going on, si
    o I’ll tell you yet again that RW’s words, topic, and demeanor, are bloody well not an issue, if you were capable of understanding.
    But, no worries, we are happy to inform you what the realit5y is, and believe me, you are getting upset about a phantasm.

    Hundreds of times, over and over, being commanded to what the reality is, as id anyone ever has the right to do that to anyone in the first place.

    Cause nothing is ever, never ever, going to get solved, if the attitude that perceiving reality in actuallity, is something we need to be constantly inform of.

    It is endemic, but you know what? I hope everyone would just quit tryingt to impress the actual facts upon each other, admit that these is a very real possibility the this misunderstaing is partly your fault too, and just move the crap on.

    Nothing has changed regarding this for months, so why do I, right now, for example, why do I an everyone else keep getting so offended over and over and over again. Maybe it’s time to just quit disagreeing with each other for every little thing we can spot, and star looking for the myriad ways that we all agree about. i would like to link to a novel I just wrote at Pharyngula, LOL, about why we are so sure that the other ‘side’ really does not see it the awy we do.

    magnus opiss generously provided for you be mikmik

    Yeah, I;m punch drunk from lack of sleep. See you folks tomorrow!

  38. says

    Truer words have rarely been spoke:

    Hamish McBeth

    @hjhornbeck

    “I used to be quite critical of Myer’s near-insta-ban of anyone who says they’re from, or can be traced back to, the ‘Pit. I’ve since begun debating and reading what is said in the ‘Pit and by people who claim to be from there, and there is a remarkable similarity between them all. To a person, they assert their privilege, cannot take criticism, and have difficulty making a good rational argument. Something about that place changes a person, strips away their skepticism and ability for free thought, and turns them into hyper-sensitive yet aggressive fools. The only notable differences I’ve found are their willingness to lie to make a point, and the grammar and vocabulary they use.”

    They are all individuals, I doubt your assertion that they all speak and act the same, but that is not so relevant(it would make it mighty easy to ban them if this were true). What is relevant is that any individual from there’s arguments can be dismissed and silenced simply because they have posted there. This ignores all rational argument that may come from someone, it ignores the stances they may or not take on certain subjects, it ignores everything of any value, except that they they can be traced to another site.

  39. A Hermit says

    Mikmik:

    AH, saying, ” over some quibble about feminism” is inflammatory. That is where most of this shit starts, and it is not an offhand remark whatsoever. You know that it is insulting, and being like that shows your unwillingness to listen

    That is almost entirely the core of this attitude of all or nothing, moral, or depraved posturing. That was uncalled for, because it is a blatant expression of the idea that you do not respect what the other person feels, or has to say..

    I’m always willing to listen, but after more than a year of these stupid arguments I have yet to see anyone on the anti-feminist side of things come up with anything approaching a coherent argument; I’ve seen a lot of strawmanning, a lot of misapprehension and misrepresentation, a lot of self indulgent whining and creationist level arguments but I have to see any good reason to reject the idea that women should be accorded the same respect and opportunities that men are.

    And that’s really all this is about. I see whinging about “dismissiveness” here, but consider the dismissiveness women have to put up with every day. Read Jen McCreight’s post on the “Boy’s Club” and tell me honestly if you’ve ever had to put up with a fraction of that kind of dismissiveness.

    I try always to start from a position of respect; I don’t think my respect is something anyone needs to earn. But it can be lost pretty easily; and one thing that will accomplish that is wilful ignorance. I see it from creationists, homophobes and Holocaust deniers and I see it from the slymepitters and their nasty obsessions.

    Why should I treat those kinds of opinions with respect?

    If someon has a reasonable disagreement I’m not going to tell them to fuck off, but if they follow me around, like our little friend Pitchguest above, parroting the same tired old talking points they’ve picked up at the feet of the Franc Hoggles of the world even after they’ve been debunked a dozen times don’t expect me to be patient or respectful or nice to them.

    it’s not because I haven’t considered what they have to say, it’s because I have looked at it, and thought about it and tried to have a reasonable discussion and found myself banging my head against a brick wall of ignorance, narcissism and dishonest posturing. I hold the position I do because I have considered both sides carefully and found only one of them to be supported by the available evidence ie that the lack of diversity in the skeptical movement is due to the same sexist pressures that exist in the rest of society, and that if we don’t recognize that and start changing it we are going to wither up and fade and away as an effective force for reason.

    I don’t give a flying fuck that you(editorial) keep insisting that us, that voice the concerns about RW’s method.

    What concerns do you have, exactly? You haven’t been very clear about that…

    And even if you have “concerns” about one individual’s “methods”, so what? Do you allow those concerns about method change your own opinion about the issue of sexism itself?

    I’m really not sure what it is you’re objecting to here…

  40. bradleybetts says

    @Astrokid

    Your posts are just plain irritating. I mean, they haven’t actually made a point yet; they consist of generalised moaning and repeated claims that Avi is being ridiculous without ever actually refuting any of his claims. OK, so you proved that you really did post before about how “MRAs by and large arent proactive about what the feminists do in your community”, but so what? Just because you’ve said it before doesn’t make it true, and what’s it even supposed to mean? That most MRA’s don’t take an active part in the ridicule and victimising of outspoken feminists? So what? You still agree with it, or at least tacitly support it by allowing members of your movement to engage in it without ever criticising them for their conduct.

    You have some rather strange points about people who aren’t feminists not calling themselves feminists. Again, what’s your point? You also seem to be surprised that Erin Pizzey isn’t considered the pinnacle of authority on feminism just because she built a shelter in 70′s Britain. Why is that surprising? She did a good thing, but just because she was considered a progressive in the 70′s doesn’t mean she would be now. Times change and the zeitgeist moves on, and if her vews on feminism haven’t changed since the seventies then it actually makes sense that she would be considered outdated today. Christ, Lincoln’s ideas on race were massively ahead of his time, but in ours he would unquestionnably be considered a racist.

    And you have an annoying habit of dodging the question and instead responding with an attack, for example here:

    Soooo… when did statements from an authority become more important than arguments and evidence? Like, I mean, I’m we’ve got doctorates in biology, anthropology, the geo sciences ect telling us answers in genesis s a good site.

    I knew some nitwit would bring up arg from authority, and evidence blah blah. Yeah.. you are the paragons of evidence based reasoning.

    And here:

    That only works when there’s an actual argument backing it and when there’s actual consensus in a field about a articular topic. For example, vaccine safety and effectiveness.What you’re doing is the opposite. People point to several very problematic and misogynistic stances taken by AVfM as well as their openly misogynistic and gender essentialist speech

    misogyny blah blah.. so what else is new?
    So you feminists who have become a big joke in the atheist community..

    Take into account, on top of all that, your juvenile habit of interspersing “LOL!” frequently throughout your posts in a weak attempt to indicate derision and your strange insistence on calling everyone “Dude” and your posts begin to represent, rather than the sapient counter-arguments you obviously imagine them to be, merely the semi-coherent ranting of a mid-teen with an inexplicable chip on his shoulder.

  41. says

    For people who are “enraged” by misrepresentations and elisions, it’s curious that you should ignore the entire context of the furore regarding Elevatorgate and just sum it up with four innocuous words. You and I both know (or actually I’m not sure you do now) that it wasn’t just about those four words, and I believe I told you this back on YouTube. It was a couple of weeks more until the shit hit the fan and most of the shit-stirring came from the community you endorse, what’s now called Freethought Blogs. PZ Myers, Stephanie Zvan, Ophelia Benson and so on at the forefront to make it more than an innocuous event, with four innocuous words, that was harmless and not a big deal at all — even according to Watson herself.

    The argument was that it was a poor place to try and hit on someone. It’s universally regarded as a poor place. It was a tad creepy and while harmless was indicative of a slight problem in the atheist community. This was not as bad as say “the geek community” or other places like the security and hacking communities. BUT it was bad. Saying you are not as bad as say “Islam” for sexism so not doing anything about the little issues you have is stupid.

    Well, my gripe with A Hermit is his insistence (despite evidence to the contrary) that it all started with four innocuous words and that was what I objected to. However, if we should start to look at the elevator incident more closely (again), in Watson’s own view, it wasn’t bad. Not only was it not bad, it was zero bad. When she got a bit of critique for the words she used, or the condescension about asking guys not to do that (which, of course, was ambiguous enough that when she was called on it, she clarified they shouldn’t do it to her), she remained firm that this wasn’t a big deal.

    It’s clear she thought the “ordeal” was trivial, the situation trivial, and the entire ruckus regarding it puzzling. But after her friends got ahold of it and fueled it with their spin, she too saw opportunity knock and also decided to spin it. Which she did. No longer was it a harmless event, but a confident male asserting his male privilege, in a situation that could have led to rape. Rape! And after Dawkins weighed in (which is still his biggest mistake to date), she said Dawkins … and I have to get the quote right just to emphasise how ridiculous it sounds … and I quote … “does not care for my experience as an atheist woman.” Really. That is—verbatim—what she said.

    At which point she called for a boycott of his books, his wares and his lectures, and urged others to do the same. In what realm of reality does she live in where this is a proportional reaction?

    The blame for this shit fest doesn’t lie with her detractors. She and her friends turned what *was* an innocuous event *into* a shit fest and the rest of us are all hoping she will it a rest.

    However, because some people took offense to Watson’s use of “sexualising” in her video and yes, the offer for coffee, Watson also decided to stir the pot. Because drama and blog hits go well together, don’tcha know. This is well documented and the documentation can be found exactly where I told you to look the last time. That is, unless you still reject evidence given to you and think it’s some kind of propaganda – or perhaps you’re afraid that you’re so weakwilled, you’ll suddenly transform yourself into a misogynist upon viewing its vile contents, and that to get rid of it you’ll have to subject yourself to some hideous form of therapy. Like that scene in Clockwork Orange.

    I have tended to notice the opposite. I have had more blog hits for good writing than for “drama”. It’s easy to stir up drama. Watch…

    Fuck Man United… See instant controversy. No Rebecca pointed out that she didn’t like the way men treated women at conferences. As pure eye candy to be hit on. There is sexism in atheism and the entire freaking AVfM and MRA contingent proves it. For fuck’s sake man you have people from the slymepit no less defending the culture of India where rape and sexual harassment abounds to the point of it being a fact of life in some parts of India. Where women are routinely killed for not paying a dowry. Where women don’t get healthcare, education, food… And you have people who are part of your movement support that culture and give excuses for it. How can you actively stand up and say that there is no grain of truth to the comments made by Atheism + and Watson? You may disagree with them but you have to admit that they are right.

    There is sexism in the atheist community and if we are to progress we have to ensure it stops. There is a reason more and more female geeks are coming to conventions. Because geeks are taking stands against sexism and they are pretty strong ones. We should LEARN from them.

    They do say a lot that women at conferences are treated as just eye candy, but have never once been able to prove that claim. They do say that a lot of sexism is prevalent in the atheist community, but have—as well—never (not once) been able to prove that claim. There’s no point telling us that some sexism occur, or some racism or some misogyny (although the last one I use loosely, due to its loose definition); they need to prove it’s systematic. Because if all they do is point to some asshole who treated that woman like shit, so what? I’m not sexist, misogynist or racist, and it would never occur to me to do or say anything sexist, misogynist or racist, and I would never treat a woman like shit because she was a woman.

    And I’m sorry, but where has the “people from the slymepit” defended the Indian culture of rape and sexual harassment? If you don’t even have the decency to browse the Slymepit for yourself, to see what it’s like *for yourself*, then how can you with any confidence claim this is what it’s like? (And for the record, we’re all individuals [to quote a famous film] at the ‘pit, we’re not the same, we’re not a fucking cult.) The claims made by Watson are sensationalist nonsense with no evidence to support it, and the Atheism+ people? Have threads where people leave because they didn’t get enough internet hugs. No, I’m not kidding. At the moment, that is the climate of Atheism+ and it’s getting worse.

    The claims made about the ‘pit is that it’s sexist, misogynist, racist; that it’s filled with potential rapists and murderers and (most recently) people who aren’t to throw into people’s faces, but with no proof. None. I’ve been a member of the ‘pit for three and a half months now and I would expect less time than that would be enough to see the kind of behaviour they regularly exhibit, but I haven’t seen anything like that, nor have I myself been exhibiting such behaviour. It’s bullshit. And it’s clear to me that anyone who believes the blanket claims about the ‘pit are just gullible. Not only are they both wrong (Watson and A+), they’re dead wrong.

    Anyway, it’s amusing that the commenters here eagerly make empty assertions about members of the Slymepit allegedly making a wide berth around women (despite the fact that many on the ‘pit are married to women, women they care for and many of the members on the ‘pit are women [Or pardon, should that be 'chillgirls' or 'sister punishers'? 'Gender traitors'? I'm not privy to the preferred nomenclature].) The Slymepit is, of course, not the misogynist, sexist, racist, callously murderous and acid-slinging haven many members here are keen to assume. It’s nothing like it at all.

    No it’s a forum in the vein of /b on 4Chan. Except /b occasionally threw up works of sheer genius (Such as the birth of Anonymous) while so far it’s just harassment and calling each other cunts. Now I understand the cultural differences also affect the word (it’s more of a term of endearment where I am from and hearing a little old lady refer to her two grand kids as a pair of daft cunts is pretty normal.) but we are on the internet, the sad truth is the majority of Internet denizens are Americans so we non americans have to cater to them in some way or else my comments will be filled with people outraged that I wish to bum a fag off them (asking for a cigarette).

    Out of interest, have you ever been to the ‘pit?

    Also, we non-Americans should “cater” to Americans on the internet? You what? You WHAT?

    There is the occasional swearword bandied about (although I’m told that swearwords are not exactly foreign here, either – especially not the word ‘fuck’) and maybe a bit of gender-neutral slurs (since they’re not used to slander anyone because of their gender) but other than that, our views of social justice, women’s rights are similar to yours. Not exactly the same, obviously. We kind of want women to be treated as adults and equals and not the professional, helpless victims that many of you infer they should be.

    Except no one in A+ or FTB has said that. Even in my case where women are helpless victims in a lot of cases. Oh and as I said there is a difference in swear words. Damn It All To Hell is a lot more acceptable than Fuck.

    You obviously have never visited the A+ forum. And as for swearwords, if it is not as acceptable, then Damn it all to Hell, why do the regulars at FTB abuse the word “fuck” so much?

    Indeed, I thought I knew the depths of censorship and political correctness by the news networks, but I was wrong. The regulars at FTB have taught me that the depths of censorship and political correctness knows no bounds.

    I don’t know if you understand blogs but each of these blogs is a private blog. We are free to run them as we see fit. Now I don’t know who the fuck you are but so far you haven’t broken any major rules because I have not yet DRAWN up a set of rules. I never had many comments on my work so I never had the need. Now with increasing traffic and comments and discussion I do have to place rules. If rules are in place and you repeatedly break them then you get banned.<

    The same rules apply on the Slymepit. A lot of the “censorship” you get is because you don’t follow the rules.

    With that last sentence, I can safely say that you have never visited the ‘pit. Censorship? On the ‘pit? There’s one instance of a ban since its inception and that was someone who thought it was clever to post images of child porn, which was taken care of immediately. There is no censorship. There are no “rules.” There is no editing of posts to be found, no embellishment, nothing. There isn’t even a fucking edit button.

    However, the funny thing is I distinctly remember that I addressed this to A Hermit, not you. Not my fault that you take it personally. The problem I have with regular commenters here is that they constantly use bullshit claims about sexism in the community, misogynisy, racism, etc – one FTB blogger even accused Richard Dawkins of even being a “superstar, white male atheist, who’ve institutionalised a very narrow prescriptive white supremacist, patriarchal version of atheism.” (WHAT?) And then there’s the shit about the ‘pit, which considering it’s a place I now frequent and have seen NOTHING like what these people describe, then I can only deduce that they’re full of shit.

  42. says

    What is relevant is that any individual from there’s arguments can be dismissed and silenced simply because they have posted there.

    How could that possibly be done? I mean, if you can’t identify them by posting style and if they don’t mention they’re from the pit, how exactly can they be identified and “silenced”?

  43. says

    I’m always willing to listen, but after more than a year of these stupid arguments I have yet to see anyone on the anti-feminist side of things come up with anything approaching a coherent argument;

    I find that hard to believe. Could you maybe tell me what your criteria are for deciding that someone deserves to be insulted and written off?

    See, the thing is, It appears to me that you are suffering from severe confirmation bias. I don’t think it is out of line to ask you how you decide to write someone off. The fact that you think that aren’t likely to ever see anyone make a coherent argument, so it okay to insult anyone that tries, well that is what I’m pointing out that we all do to much.
    However, you have just admitted to prejudicial behavior, and would also ask you to consider the most basic , and primary situation that is used to show the difference between valid reasoning, and invalid reasoning. It goes like this”
    John is a man.
    John likes fish.
    Therefore all men like fish.

    This is an egregious example of making a hasty conclusion, or sweeping generalization. It never valid to take specific examples of a specific behavior or quality, and conclude that it holds for everyone. That takes gathering together a random sampling of the population, and have a second year psych student, one that is already overloaded with insane amounts of reading and analyzing material and doing reports.. Just a jokew.

    The sample group must be chosen, as well as a control group, with the person evaluating and collecting the data to be completely in the dark while gathering info.
    After that,and only if the researchers have followed a rigorous and unlikely to introduce bias, or other methods that would skew the data, protocol, then, and only then, can they make an estimation of likelihood for the population in general. I see that bradleybetts is taking issue with exactly what I am with you, and asking for the same type of evidence on which the person’s conclusion is based.

    Another thing, I have never, as far as I know, met anyone that I disagree with on every conceivable issue, and the people that I get frustrated with, are generally saying things that I agree with a large majority of the time. I try to never consider anyone better or worse, fundamentally, than me, just that we disagree on certain concepts.

    Anyways, it is very silly to take yours, or anyone elses, and even my own observations as valid data, and no matter how many times you report of having seen a particular behavior in action, you have not satisfied why anyone should take your word for anything. Anecdotal reports are the most highly suspect, and always invalid, type of evidence.

    I can only go this far right now, because I want to check the veracity of your opinion, and you need to show me specifically what criteria must be satisfied in order to consider someone a freak, or whatever. Otherwise, your statements are just so much unsupported opinion, based on your biased collection of observations. NO ONE is capable of being completely objective at the best of times, let alone around highly emotional topics, not a fucking chance in hell, generally. That is the type of claim where I would be reasonably asked to provide the information on which I form my opinion.

    So, before we can go any further, you have a game breaking responsibility you show why your opinion is true. You may want to challenge my opinion on something that I initially present as true.

    This is what I am talking about when I say it is especially necessary to never take anyone’s opinions or conclusions as true like, your claim about what you say you have seen the last one and a half years. This is the place that communication breaks down, that people like me, and bradleybetts, are taking issue with what is going on, because no matter how much anyone claims that it is obvious, and that I obviously am incapable of seeing my hand in front of my face, let alone that I am an incapable dunce, or similar assertion.
    To claim that it is so obviously true that their assertion is beyond needing any further justification. This is even more insultingly wrong to form an opinion on, than the fish example.

    I hope you agree that you are incumbent on providing specific, and validly logical, reasons for writing people off and insulting them , out of hand.

    This is why people like me call foul when it comes to the veracity of assertion that it is fucking obvious, why are you all so blind.

    I don’t even really wish the necessity of taking this path, in my opinion, but I see that we are likely to continue trying to get this settled properly for the foreseeable future.

    Otherwise, all claims made to be representative of the truth, are worthless tautologies.

    So, I would be pleased if you show the reasons behind your statement that anyone that shows disagreement in some way is automatically an idiot.
    It is time for people to put their money where their mouth is, including me, obviously. Just because you, perhaps, have a faulty opinion about something, that in no way implies that therefore my opinion is necessarily true.

    I would ask others to stay away from joining in on this particular conversation, please. There is no reason that I can’t have the right to request this, so I want to see what develops between A Hermit and myself. Thanks :)

  44. says

    The blame for this shit fest doesn’t lie with her detractors. She and her friends turned what *was* an innocuous event *into* a shit fest

    When you make the whole elevator thing about what Rebecca said or did, you fail.

    What she did, right or wrong, was not a shit fest. The response to what she did was a shit fest, and the only people responsible for it are the ones flinging shit. And considering that it’s the exact same shit we see flung at women simply for being women again and again and again, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the issue is not Rebecca.

    Rebecca has had hundreds if not thousands of people call her every sexist insult in the book and threaten her in every way possible. Nothing she could say or do could make her responsible for that. Saying otherwise makes you, I’m comfortable saying, a shit head.

  45. bradleybetts says

    They do say that a lot of sexism is prevalent in the atheist community, but have—as well—never (not once) been able to prove that claim.

    Does the mere existence of the slymepit not prove that?

  46. says

    When I said this, ” Anecdotal reports are the most highly suspect, and always invalid, type of evidence.”, I don’t mean that what you say is automatically wrong on principle, I mean that it is always wrong to claim something is true, on their say so.

  47. A Hermit says

    Well, my gripe with A Hermit is his insistence (despite evidence to the contrary) that it all started with four innocuous words and that was what I objected to. However, if we should start to look at the elevator incident more closely (again), in Watson’s own view, it wasn’t bad. Not only was it not bad, it was zero bad. When she got a bit of critique for the words she used, or the condescension about asking guys not to do that (which, of course, was ambiguous enough that when she was called on it, she clarified they shouldn’t do it to her), she remained firm that this wasn’t a big deal.

    No, you’re re-writing history here. It really did start with those four little words, and what she got in return was not “a bit of critique” it was rape threats and sexualized cyber-abuse.

    I’ve been to your precious Slymepit. While it’s not “filled with potential rapists and murderers” (I don’t think anyone has ever actually said that have they? Maybe you can find me an actual quote for that one?) it is filled with self important wankers laughing at each others juvenile comments and whining about how badly their feelings are hurt when women dare to talk about sexism. It’s a sad, pathetic place obsessed with combing through other people’s online behaviour looking for evidence of “Baboolie” behaviour and reasons to ignore real concerns about problems like sexism and racism; problems which you dismiss as “bullshit” in your comment above.

    How many threads are there on the Slymepit that have anything to do with skepticism, atheism or humanism and how many are dedicated to parsing through some comment made by one of the Skepchicks or someone at FtB looking for reasons to be offended? Why would anyone waste their time in a place dedicated almost exclusively to that kind of personality obsessed Junior High School level behaviour?

    Am I being dismissive? Yes I’m dismissive of people who appeal to that ridiculous little circle jerk of a forum as if there’s any kind of moral or skeptical authority to be found there in the same way I’m dismissive of people who think that Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Historical Review are worthwhile resources.

  48. says

    However, you have just admitted to prejudicial behavior, and would also ask you to consider the most basic , and primary situation that is used to show the difference between valid reasoning, and invalid reasoning. It goes like this”

    Irrelevant. You need to learn the difference between a syllogism used to establish a definite conclusion and a heuristic used to reach a preliminary standpoint, open to revision. You’re objecting as if A Hermit proposed a syllogism, despite the fact that “I’m always willing to listen…” quite explicitly makes it a preliminary position.

    It is in fact possible to reach a preliminary conclusion without a major study. People do it all the time. There’s nothing wrong with that as long as you’re open to new information.

  49. A Hermit says

    I find that hard to believe. Could you maybe tell me what your criteria are for deciding that someone deserves to be insulted and written off?

    I thought I outlined that pretty clearly…after they have demonstrated willful ignorance, ie an inability or unwillingness to examine their own biases and consider other points of view, clinging to stale talking points and ignoring new information.

    See, the thing is, It appears to me that you are suffering from severe confirmation bias. I don’t think it is out of line to ask you how you decide to write someone off.

    Except I just explained to you that I have come to my position on the issue of sexism and a lack of diversity in the skeptic/atheist community by looking at both sides, confronting my own preconceptions and biases, considering the evidence and considering the arguments on both sides. And I explained why I might write some people off; because they have demonstrated willful ignorance on the issue.

    You’re awfully quick to accuse me (groundlessly) of confirmation bias but you want me to ignore worse biases in other people?

    Another thing, I have never, as far as I know, met anyone that I disagree with on every conceivable issue, and the people that I get frustrated with, are generally saying things that I agree with a large majority of the time. I try to never consider anyone better or worse, fundamentally, than me, just that we disagree on certain concepts.

    Maybe you haven’t spent as much time arguing with Holocaust deniers and Homophobes as I have…there are some concepts where disagreement is more than just a polite academic exercise. Sexism and it’s corrosive effect on this movement would be an example of such a concept.

    Anyways, it is very silly to take yours, or anyone elses, and even my own observations as valid data, and no matter how many times you report of having seen a particular behavior in action, you have not satisfied why anyone should take your word for anything. Anecdotal reports are the most highly suspect, and always invalid, type of evidence.

    We’re not in a lab or a courtroom, we’re talking about human interactions. You’re concerned about what you call my dismissive attitude but aren’t you being dismissive when you reject women’s descriptions of what they experience in their lives as “highly suspect” and “always invalid?”

    would be pleased if you show the reasons behind your statement that anyone that shows disagreement in some way is automatically an idiot.

    Where did I say that? I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth or attribute attitudes to me which I have not expressed and do not hold.

    It’s going to be hard to have a reasonable conversation if you’re going to start lying like that…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>