Stephanie collected some of the nonsense from the distant watchers of Women in Secularism 3. It’s pretty pathetic, as usual.
I found this one amusing for its brazen…invention.
Oh really? Who and where are all these women? I know of a handful on Twitter, but a handful is not “most” – there were far more than a handful right there at Women in Secularism, enjoying the hell out of it. I have a feeling Sara Mayhew is inventing that “most” out of thin air.
Sara’s made it pretty clear over the past few years that she’s unaware of what no small number of words mean; I guess we can add ‘most’ to that list.
She’s apparently a rape apologist too, so her being a petty shit to other women in skeptic/atheist circles is sort of only the tip of the iceberg.
@ Joe
Right. Because no one posting here would call her the c-word for disagreeing on something like the proper attitude of women towards rape. But making hateful insinuations about her character is A-OK and in no way should be construed as a form of harassment designed to facilitate group think.
I’m sometimes pretty dense about catching on to someone’s subtle nuances over the internet, but I think your post is an example of the behavior she is complaining about.
Beth:
Sara Mayhew has relentlessly harassed people, lied about them, then lied some more. And, yes, she’s engaged in rape apologia when it suits her agenda to lash out at women she hates. This is well documented behavior. No one is insinuating anything: Mayhew has behaved deplorably. Her character is dreadful.
No, Beth, you’re still being dense. This time it’s apparently through total ignorance of what Sara Mayhew does – but also a huge helping of hostility to me and to this blog.
Also, where is there harassment? I don’t go out of my way to ever say word one to her. Plus, anyone who claims “group-think” unironically can be dismissed out of hand as pretty bad at the thinky-stuff.
When will free thought be fitted with a proper GPS transponder so we can track it after a hijacking?
Beth @3
Put Sara Mayhew in the search box on the upper right corner of this page and start reading about Ms Mayhew. Joe @2 wasn’t being rude to her, he was describing her present and past behavior.
@Ophelia
I’m sorry you felt that was hostile to you. I won’t comment in this thread again.
What a shittty, passive aggressive response, Beth. Do better.
Are you routinely dishonest, Beth, or this just special for us here? Do you routinely ignore commenters who provide you with the context you don’t have, simply pretending you didn’t see that?
What’s your aim and interest, Beth?
Way back when all this started, my impression was that one of Mayhew’s objections to those speaking out against harassment was that they were presuming to speak on behalf of all women. I didn’t see it at all, myself, as it seemed to be confusing “this behaviour bothers women” with “this behaviour bothers all women” with “this behaviour bothers you, specifically, even if you claim otherwise, I can read your mind and I’m here to remind the men around you that you are a woman and throw off your one-of-the-guys game”, but okay, I can get how that might be an issue if it’s how she sees things.
How things change.
And her statistically reliable data for that claim is?
Oh, wait, she pulled it right out of one of her orifices, as usually
Mayhew’s nonsense is always so… *wearisome* on top of everything else. How does holding a conference hijack free thought? What could hijacking free thought possibly mean? Mayhew doesn’t care whether she’s making a point as long as she thinks she’s making something she doesn’t like look bad.
I don’t want to generalise, but you know what they say about most people (men included) called Sara Mayhew…
@Improbable Joe, bearer of the Official SpokesGuitar :
Plus, anyone who claims “group-think” unironically can be dismissed out of hand as pretty bad at the thinky-stuff.
Is that really so? Why do you say that?
(Incidentally, unironically” according to the red underline on my screen apparently isn’t a word. Not that that really matters.)
I agree with Ophelia Benson here on the tweet though.
@15. stewart :No? can’t speak for anyone else but I call her (& other people named Sara Mayhew) by their actual name i.e. just that.
Not sure resorting to name-calling or personal abuse is ever that helpful especially when we’re all quick to call out the other side for doing so.
Saying shes a horrible (or other applicable adjective) person and explaining why should suffice.
Beth. You were wrong. Whether through insufficient knowledge or through clumsiness, you were wrong. Don’t project that onto me.
A bunch of women (and some men with interest in the issues) holding a conference is hijacking freethought? If Mayhew thinks that’s all it takes, then she has a pretty low opinion of freethought. I guess we’re free to think like Sara Mayhew and her friends….
Beth, I’ve had several dozen conversations with Sara Mayhew. I recognise several people here who’ve dealt with her even more. This is how every conversation with Sara Mayhew goes:
SM:
Anyone: Wow. really? do you have evidence for that?
SM: (copying in all her friends) Look at how the bullies keep bullying me. The bullies. That proves whatever ridiculous claim I’ve just made because bullies.
Anyone: Um… we just asked for evidence
SM:
Perhaps others have had more productive conversations with Sara but every single one I’ve been involved with has gone this way.
damn it. shouldn’t have used those brackets
Still, fuck it, the content is more or less the same. She makes ridiculous statements, usually about real people, then pretends she didn’t, despite the evidence being right there on Twitter.
@ StevoR
You’ll notice, I hope, that I didn’t actually call her (or anyone else with her name) anything, but merely posed a question as a way of mocking her use of the word “most”. I am actually fairly careful about avoiding the kind of thing against which I think you are (rightly) warning.
SteveoR
Not to speak for Josh, but it’s just shorthand for ‘I don’t like what you’re saying’. That’s it. It’s not an argument, And it’s pretty much just a boring cliche at this point.
If someone has an objection to a commonly held opinion on this site, or any other, they should lay out their case. Just sneering ‘group-think’, as if it’s remarkable that people of a like mind might want to congregate together, is pointless.
Why does she keep doing this? What does she get out of it? Is the cost/benefit analysis really in her favour?
thetalkingstove:
You couldn’t have been speaking for Josh because you quoted that guy quoting me, not Josh. 🙂
But yeah… absent any evidence, claims of “group-think” are generally meant to mean “you and your friends disagree with me and my friends.” Especially since Mayhew has a whole bunch of shitty assholes who agree with her bullying, harassing behavior and terribly sexist attitudes… and yet even though they are a group who think they same it cannot ever be “group-think” for them because. Just because.
Sili – I think just because she enjoys it? I can’t think of any other reason.