Mark Oppenheimer has published an article to blow open the sexism scandals — Will Misogyny Bring Down The Atheist Movement? And whoa, Michael Shermer does not come off well in it.
This bit is more than a little disturbing:
“Shermer has been a bad boy on occasion — I do know that,” Randi told me. “I have told him that if I get many more complaints from people I have reason to believe, that I am going to have to limit his attendance at the conference.
“His reply,” Randi continued, “is he had a bit too much to drink and he doesn’t remember. I don’t know — I’ve never been drunk in my life. It’s an unfortunate thing … I haven’t seen him doing that. But I get the word from people in the organization that he has to be under better control. If he had gotten violent, I’d have him out of there immediately. I’ve just heard that he misbehaved himself with the women, which I guess is what men do when they are drunk.”
I’m glad I’ll be off in Fargo this weekend when the howling mob descends.
That was really quick. Both Ashley Miller and Stephanie Zvan already have substantial comments on the article. (We obviously knew it was coming — we were interviewed for it — but didn’t know what the overall tenor of the story was going to be. I think they prepared ahead of time.)
After sleeping on it, one of the things I like about the article is that it quotes extensively from both sides: not just me and Alison and other people on the anti-misogyny side, but also Shermer himself and Jillette and Emery, and those apologists come across as slimy, dissembling assholes in their own words. It’s a bit like a television police procedural, where all the bad guys indict themselves with their inconsistencies as soon as they open their mouths.
I’m not a big fan of how it portrays Melody — she’s been stressed out, but functioning anyway. She’s organized a couple of major conferences in this time! It could have also spent more time presenting Alison’s story and evidence…but then, I understand that this was not a court case, but an opportunity to discuss the positions of both sides.
maybe this will be the beginning of the end of it.
Optimist.
A good overview of the past few years of shitstorms.
Doubt it’ll crystallise opinions in either direction, but it will be interesting to see whether or not a relatively sober assessment like this provides fewer places for genuine sceptics to avoid unpalatable issues.
Too late to read it all now, but:
That’s sounds a lot like downplaying the extent too which women were thrown under the bus. Fuck Randi, you jackass.
A howling mob or Fargo…
Tough choice.
DJ saying “there’s never been a report” ? We’ve heard that before.
What Randi seems to be saying here is that Shermer never committed any violence against men so he’s perfectly OK! “Misbehaving” with and/or violence against women is just not important at all.
“just’ is an interesting word.
@7 nutella
I’m reading that as “If there had been violence, that would have been *legitimate* rape, and I’d have done something. But getting someone drunk and [air quotes]raping[/air quotes wink wink] her? Well, you know, boys will be boys. That Shermer fellow, what a scamp.”
I second Jacob Schmidt @ #4.
Quoting Penn Jillette from the article on the use of the word “c*nt”:
Yeah Penn, THAT’S the reason you use that slur. You are certainly the James Joyce of your time.
Possible rambling derail here:
I’ve come to the conclusion that if you really want to fight fundamentalism (be it Christian or Islamic) or, at least defang it, you should be actively fighting for social justice issues. As we have witnessed, the nations with the least religiosity are the ones that take the most care of their people and do the best they can to remove inequality and suffering If history is any indicator, these societies didn’t alleviate their social problems by eliminating religion, but eliminated the influence of religion by working to fix the inequalities that drove the poor and disenfranchised to it.
Yet, we have atheist who embrace lassiez faire capitalism and opposes the welfare state, just as the American Christian Right does. We have atheists who loudly deny global warming, just as the Christian Right does. We have atheists who embrace or make lame excuses for racism and use psuedo-science to defend it , just as many fundamentalist Christians do. We have atheists who refer to women as “sluts” and “whores” and believe that feminism as anti-male and anti-sex, just as right-wing Christians do. We have atheists who disparge any effort on behalf of “social justice,” just like fundies do. We have atheists who support military aggression Islam, just like the Bible-humpers do… and so on.
If you are an “dictionary” atheist and libertarian, MRA, AGW denialist, or think that “The Bell Curve” had some pretty good ideas, and that the Muslims need to be “bombed back into the stone age,” guess what side you’re helping in the war between atheism and religion?
I’ll give you a hint: It’s not atheism.
This is good. It will make it even harder to ignore the issue.
I would have expected a stronger position from Randi though.
Yeah, because
sexual assaultmisbehaviour is just something men-as-a-class do when they’re drunk, like weaving about and losing their balance and throwing up. No choice in the matter at all, no harm, no foul, it’s natural, eh fellers?Wonder how he’d explain all the men I’ve known who’ve done no such thing, drunk or sober. I guess they must be outliers.
Go walk on all the Legos, Randi-Rape-Apologist.
@Akira #11: good food for thought; it’s very interesting to consider whether a good society will favor disbelief.
Not sure I agree with your last sentence, but that’s besides the point: IMHO there is not much point in disbelieving if it doesn’t make you a better human being.
Ugh I was trying to slurp down dinner as I typed this. Let’s Edit the following:
Yet, we have atheist who embrace lassiez faire capitalism and opposes the welfare state, just as the American Christian Right does. We have atheists who loudly deny global warming, just as the Christian Right does. We have atheists who embraces or makes lame excuses for racism and uses psuedo-science to defend it , just as many fundamentalist Christians do. We have atheists who refer to women as “sluts” and “whores” and believe that feminism is anti-male and anti-sex, just as right-wing Christians do. We have atheists who disparge any effort on behalf of “social justice,” just like fundies do. We have atheists who support military aggression against Islam, just like the Bible-humpers do… and so on.
2 Kittehs @13
So, as I understand the MRAs:
If a man get’s drunk and sexually assaults a woman, then it’s not his fault because he didn’t know what he was doing.
If a woman get’s drunk and is sexually assaulted by a man, then it’s not his fault because she didn’t know what she was doing.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
I’m hoping at least it starts getting Shermer blocked from being a VIP at atheist conventions, or at least put on explicit warnings about misconduct. The whole “I’ve behaved badly when drunk” is typical evasive bullshit.
It’s pretty damning that Randi himself acknowledged Shermer’s misconduct towards women at atheist conventions.
Akira McKenzie @16:
I’d write the second part as “If a woman get’s drunk and is sexually assaulted by a man, then it’s not his fault because she knew perfectly well what she was doing,” but yup, the essence of MRA *cough* thought *cough* is that everything is women’s fault, always. Men, despite being the super-geniuses who did all the great stuff ever (and all men get the credit for that) are at the same time completely without agency, mindless attachments of their penises.
And they think it’s feminists who despise men! /smh
I wonder if the usual suspects are going to call out Randi as a Social Justice Warrior trying to undermine skepticism, now that he’s basically confirmed that Shermer is a serial harasser.
So, what’s Randi? A polka dotted space camel?
And even if that were the case, the answer is to shrug your shoulder?
Let me try again:
Would anybody think that was reasonable?
As for Grothe, that’s of course either the “He’s popular, he could get consensual sex, therefore he wouldn’t have to rape therefore he diidn’t do it” defense or the “I don’t care that he’s a rapist, he brings in money” defense. Knowing that Grothe is a misogynist fuck, I think the latter one is the more likely one.
side note: why are you in Fargo on the one weekend I’m in Minneapolis? You did not plan this well. :-p
Akira:
F.O:
yup!
I will actually be hosting a workshoppy thingy about that at skepticon this year :-)
Anyway: since The Grenade, MRAs/pitters have been whining about “anonymous” accusations; now it’s named, so what’s the new whine gonna be? (because let’s face it, they’ll definitely shift the goalpoasts rather than admitting there’s something to the accusations) I’ve seen one asshole already say that he doesn’t believe accusations when the victims don’t go to the police.
Reading the article I notice what we’d call a Treppenwitz (a staircase jock) in German: in a well-written article about sexism and misogyny the author goes into heavy detail on what exactly Rebecca Watson looked like in her infamous “guys don’t do that” video….
Make that “jole”, not jock. I should get another coffee…
JOKE, FFS.
Head->Desk
Maybe I’d be better if I tries typing with my nose…
Jadehawk @23:
I figure there’ll be two lines of defense, the first being that. Second, I bet they’ll fixate on this:
Shermer’s just a “creep,” see! Sure, what he did may legally be classified as sexual assault, but Smith doesn’t call it that! It’s just “creeping.” Millar? Well, she THINKS she saw Shermer playing with his crotch, but he could have just been adjusting things. Gay? Never touched her!
Nothing to see here, just a hit piece by a liberal mangina with an axe to grind. All it proves is that the conspiracy runs DEEP.
@14 F.O.
Agreed. And there probably isn’t much point in anything if not to that end, really, because what else is there, especially given the benefit to others?
But the world does seem to endure some presence of “because screw everything” and “therefore, screw everything” disbelievers.
Shorter Randi: “Boys will be boys.”
Fuck that noise. Boys will be what we teach them to be.
The only hope for the long term is to teach our male children about the fundamental humanity of women, starting from infancy. Passing law and instituting conference policies are stopgaps, necessary to sure, but they’re only top-down band-aids on the true wounds in our society.
Speak up.
Dare to be heard in all sorts of company, little ears are not fragile.
And always remember that a society is made up of the actions of it’s members, not the rules put in place at the top.
akira I do not see how it could be any other way.
I always get the feeling that there are two general kinds of none believers
those who do not believe in any gods because it is impossible and follow that logic as you out lined and those who do not believe there is a god because there could be nothing any more important than they are and there for they are as god.
I’m not sure about that remark of Randi’s it could be just a cynical insult thrown back at the stupid excuses he was given. It is the actions that will tell the story.
uncle frogy
I will admit to being morbidly curious as to how certain parties will spin this – I mean, it’s pretty clear cut isn’t it? They’ll need an impressive conspiracy theory to account for this.
It’s a real shame about Randi, but I suppose it shouldn’t be a surprise by now.
No mention of Emery Emery yet? Tsk.
Emphasis added. That’s some mighty fine detective work there, Emery.
Again, emphasis mine. Cripes, he comes across as more conservative than Phyllis Schlafly.
For a moment, let’s imagine if a Catholic bishop had made a statement like that about one of his priests:
Would anyone buy that excuse? Would anyone even pretend that the bishop wasn’t partly responsible for this behavior?
I can’t get into the article to actually read (or Buzzfeed in general currently) but have no idea if it’s related to this article or not.
Even if you accept the “men do these things when drunk” defense despite its glaring double standard (since when exactly is sexual harrassment not a form of violence?) – it only works once. Because if you know that you tend to misbehave when drunk, well, there’s a simple solution “Don’t get drunk”.
Problem is, we live in a culture where getting drunk seems to be so ingrained as norm that drunk misbehaviour is often excused.
sonderval
But taht would be limiting men’s freedom. Naa, the only people whose freedom it is reasonable to curtail is women’s (don’t wear that, don’t drink, don’t go there, don’t take pics of yourself…)
@36 Giliell
Precisely.
Right, I feel compelled to get myself flamed regarding this article so sit back, relax and here comes some ignorance. First of all I admist that I havent read then entire article, I’m currently at work which is kind of an excuse but honestly, I stopped when I got to these paragraphs:
Firstly from Alison:
“He offered to walk me back to my room, but walked me to his instead. I don’t have a clear memory of what happened after that. I know we had sex
Then from Alison’s email to PZ:
At a conference, Mr. Shermer coerced me into a position where I could not consent, and then had sex with me […] I wanted to share this story in case it helps anyone else ward off a similar situation from happening […] Ever since, I’ve heard stories about him doing things (5 different people have directly told me they did the same to them) and wanted to just say something and warn people, and I didn’t know how.
Ok, I think most of you can guess where I am going with this. I won’t bore any of you by stating excuses for my reasoning but the above just doesn’t sit right with me. I got myself thrown out of my local club the other week for being drunk and probably disgraceful (memory dump is incomplete), it’s not something I’m ever proud of but it does occasionally happen, I get drunk, say something objectionable and get frog marched out of the night club, I then wake up the next day with a hang-over a mouth like Kermit’s armpit and regret.
Alison Smith got drunk and slept with someone she regrets sleeping with, how is this an issue for anyone other than her? She says she was put in a position of not being able to say no, did she say no? If so then it’s rape, if not then is it just a regret? I have plenty of those, so do we all the night after drinking but they are our regrets, our responsibility. If I’m missing the point here please educate me, if the issue is about a person in a position of power abusing that power to get laid then I agree it’s unprofessional of Michael Shermer. If however it’s about doing something when drunk you now regret then tough luck, take responsibility for your actions and don’t get so drunk in future.
Michael Shermer comes across as a womaniser, a person ready, willing and able to use all means foul and fair at his disposal to get sex. A creep, well who can argue with that but honestly, if I had got drunk at a conference, slept with someone and then found out that the person I slept with regretted the descision enough to write letters claiming I put them in a positions where they couldn’t say know I’d be horrified and deeply upset.
If she found herself in a situation where she felt she couldn’t say no but wanted to say no, take responsibility and bloody well say NO, say it loudly, say it at length but say it and don’t voice regrets after the fact.
@Giliel
Silly me, what was I thinking?
@volyova
Drunk people are impaired in their mental capabilities. Therefore, they cannot consent. If someone makes you drunk and lets you sign a contract afterwards – would that be o.k. even if you regret the contract when sober?Would no blame fall on the person who made you sign?
In addition, it is one thing when you misbehave when drunk, it is another to exploit someone else who is drunk.
In shorter terms: you are victim-blaming.
Ah, another blame the victim MRA/MRA sympathizer. Dismissed.
Shorter volyova: Women shouldn’t get drunk! Somebody intentionally getting her drunk to the point that they have gaps in their memory while staying sober himself and then manouvering her into his room to fuck isn’t doing anything wrong! She’s the one to blame!
I don’t care what the law and decency say about the ability to consent!
@volyova
If you look at this sentence
you’ll notice that it states that she just “found herself in a situation”. This is not what this is about. Someone actively placed her in this situation. This someone is the person who has to make sure that there is a “yes”. It really is that simple.
@volyova – FUCK YOU!
You are a rape enabler. You side with rapists over victims. You are a disgusting excuse for a human being.
Of course volyova had to ignore the predatory part of Shermer topping off the victim’s drinks, so the victim had no way of knowing how much she had actually drank. Such an omission tells us all we need to know about volyova and their honesty and integrity on the matter.
Ok fair and valid points. @ Nerd of Redhead, there’s little point in calling me an MRA or an MRA sympathiser, I’m neither and insulting me won’t achieve anything. I’m not suggesting that Shermer’s behavior was appropriate I’m saying that when you get drunk, you are responsible for your own actions. She freely admits that she doesn’t remember exactly what happened, this happens to me too often, am I not culpable for my actions if I can’t remember them?
If I buy something when drunk I didn’t want to buy when sober, can I sue the vendor for taking advantage of me? Is it not naive to assume that people will not take advantage of you if you are completely Hasslehoff’d, do Casinos not exist for this entire reason?
I sure as hell do not want to victim blame here, but as far as I can see there is no victim as a crime hasn’t been committed. Drunken liasions happen in ever social situation were alcohol is involved, saying that someone should not be held accoutable for their own actions when drunk is just plain wrong.
I’m not supporting Shermer’s actions – or at least I hope to Lemmy that I’m not tacitly providing support for him, I’m simply saying that you do not lose all culpability for your own actions because you had one too many banana daiquiris, and neither by the way does the legal system.
I would like to add my voice to the other commenters on the thread, like Jacob Schmidt @ 4, who are pointing out that this amounts to throwing women under the bus by adopting a ‘boys will be boys’ attitude toward sexual assault, as if it is behaviour to be expected when men get a skinful and isn’t a big deal. Given that sexual assault most certainly is a form of violence, drawing this artificial distinction sails dangerously close to being outright rape apologia. At one time I would have expected better of Randi, but these days I am so used to prominent atheist leaders revealing themselve to be nauseatingly bigoted misogynists that this really doesn’t come as much of a surprise.
On the subject of rape apologia, we get to volyova @ 38;
Why do you think that rapist either ply their targets with intoxicants, such as alcohol, or outright poison them with covertly administered drugs like rhohypnol? The idea is to render that person incapable of saying ‘no’ or otherwise objecting. A person who is severly intoxicated is incapable of giving consent, and sex without consent is always rape. Exploiting a person whose capacity has been diminshed though alcohol consumption is clearly a sexually predatory act, your victim blaming antics notwithstanding.
I can’t help but wander why you are so invested in excusing this particular form of rape.
volyova
At least here Casinos watch out for drunk people and stop them from playing.
And no, the law is really, really clear: You are responsible for the things you do, not for the things done to you. If you are too drunk to consent (and, btw, make legal contracts), it is rape. Would you still be arguing if he hadn’t simply used large quantities of alcohol but put something else into her drink?
Yes, you are looking more like a rape apologist with every word you write.
And if it walks like a duck…
Volyova – actually you may well be able to have the contract set aside arguing you didn’t have capacity to contract. And I don’t have case law to hand but I’m guessing that if the VENDOR gets you drunk, with a view to getting you to agree to a purchase, you’re chances of having your contract upheld are not good.
The law in MANY respects recognises the impairment that comes with drinking.
We generally don’t call people willing to use “foul” methods to obtain sex “womanisers”. In fact, “rapists” is a much better word for those who have been successful in the endeavour.
I don’t believe you.
No, you aren’t condemning his behavior either. Very telling.
Yep, script #7 from the MRA library. Totally the MRA line. Which is why your opinion is dismissed.
Wow, in the time it took me to write a response, I am now a rape enabler according to Marius (thanks for the fuck you btw) and have been dismissed by Redhead. As a longtime Pharyngula reader I believed the comments section might actually be a place to post a problem I was having with this article and a point regarding alcohol consumtion and personal responsibility, silly me, I should’ve read more of them over the years.
Look, flaming everyone you disagree with is no way to go through life people, insulting and labelling them as the worst form of abuse enabler isn’t a nice thing to do or in any way helpful.
I don’t pretend to be an expert on sexual ethics but isn’t most consent implied?
…..but at the end of day whatever, if I can’t post my opinions (objectionable as they might be) here then thank you and good day, I have better things to do than put up with accusations of rape enablement and MRA supporting.
Sleeping with someone without their consent isn’t a crime now? There’s absolutely a victim here. Five, at least.
volyova @ 45;
Would that be the same misogynistic legal system that is infamous for its failure to effectively deal with sexual criminality? That ensures that the vast majority of rape allegations never result in convictions by cultivating a victim blaming culture among law enforcement and court officials that women are fundamentally untrustworthy with regard to rape cases?
What makes you think that the legal system is some shining exemplar of what is ethical in any case? For centuries, the law did not recognise that such a thing as marital rape existed. Does that mean that marital rape was a moral impossibility before the law was amended? In the US, the law treated homosexulaity as a mental illness until the 1970’s. Does that twisted pseudo-diagnosis hold for all cases prior to the seventies simply because the law of the period was homophobic?
That which is currently legal =/= that which is ethically acceptable. If rape was legalised tomorrow, would you then consider it open season on all women everywhere, or would you stand up against a clearly monstrously unjust failure of the law?
Oh I’m conflicted. Should I mock? Should I treat this seriously? Should I ignore it?
Oh.
Oh!
OH!
OH YEAH!
Okay that’s the only bit of this I approve of. Hurrah! I’m taking a mark off my card for that one.
OOH YEAAAAH!! (And [citation needed])
OOOOOH YEAAAAAHHH!!!!!
And “if”? “IF”? Because a woman’s testimony is automatically unreliable because….? Hmmmm.
Oh Oh Oh OH OHHHHHH! Yes yes YES!
Because sexual violation of people coerced in some fashion or incapable of giving explicit, clear consent is “unprofessional”.
Did you know it’s my professional JOB not to rape drunk people or people intimidated by my position in some fashion? Did you know it’s my professional JOB to assume consent on the part of someone else rather than seek it? I feel, and this is perhaps a minor point, this may be a category error. My professional job is entirely unrelated to my willingness or otherwise/responsibility to rape people in vulnerable positions (for pretty much any definition of “vulnerable”). My ethical and moral responsibility on the other hand…but hey…I’m a man. A bloke. A drunkard on occasion too (“Occasion”, Louis? When not dieting due to lardiness derived from drunkenness I make a point of being drunk. For health reasons. Usually other peoples’ health reasons. It’s really unhealthy for me to be sober near fuckwits. I become remarkably sarcastic.).
Why this is political correctness gone MAD! It’s not MY responsibility to prevent silly drunken ladies leaping vulva first at my penis and enveloping it with their regretful, irresponsible vaginas. CURSE YOU IRRESPONSIBLE VAGINAS!!! STOP REGRETFULLY ENGULFING MY UNPROFESSIONAL CHOPPER!!!
OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH YEEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!
Just a public service announcement: I really like punching people in the face. Love it. It’s, like, totally my favourite thing ever. No. Really. Deadly serious. Not sarcastic.* Oh and I’m really good at it too. I’m a bit of a face puncher, if you know what I mean, people with faces. HAWT! Those people with faces have, you know, complimented me on my face punching. I have quite the variety of techniques. I’m something of a CasanoPUNCHYOUINNAFACEva, if you know what I mean. Ladies. {Wink and the gun} {Pops collar} {Puts on shades}
I hope no drunk people put their punchable faces in the way of my fist. That would be remarkably irresponsible of them. Naughty naughty punched people with punchable faces being regretful and drunk. Tsk. IF, you know, IF, they regret it. Hey, masochists exist right? Huh? HUH? Dirty masochists. With their short…erm…maxillae. And drunk cerebella. Filthy, drunk cerebella. Mmmm punchy.
OH yeah! OH yeah! Oh yeah! OHHHH yeah!!!!
I’d be horrified and deeply upset too. But mainly because if I’d done that I’d have raped them (almost certainly, somewhere between 92% and 98% of the time based on false accusation stats). And you know what? I’m going out on a moral limb here, I’m not a fan of doing that. I think rape is bad. I know. Controversial.
Crazy wildness, I know. Probably because I’m some kinda lefty weird beard mangina beta omega gamma theta who hates sex and wants to castrate all men or something. I hate flirting and jokes too. And beer. And sex. And Men. And beery jokey flirty sexy jokey jokes and men.
Call me weirdly “responsible” or something, but if I had fucked up sufficiently to NOT establish clear, enthusiastic consent on the part of my sexual partner(s) prior to introducing my meat and two veg into the equation, I dunno, I think that might be, you know, MY fuck up. That might be because I had been negligent in my responsibility to establish clear, enthusiastic consent on the part of my potential sexual partner(s). WOW! REVOLUTIONARY RESPONSIBILITY!
It’s this weird thing, it’s like I care more about not raping people than having sex, and am willing to (even if it’s really tough) not have sex even when super horny if I can’t establish consent. Even more weird, I manage to do this without forms signed in triplicate by doing something I learned at school called “Using My Words”. I can imagine someone regretting having sex with me, hell I’ve regretted having sex with myself! But regret doesn’t = being violated. It’s like they are totally different things and people like Ms Smith are describing the latter not the former. Weird.
Maybe if someone is sufficiently drunk (or intimidated or coerced or compromised) that I can’t clearly establish their verbal consent to X, Y or Z, I should not do X, Y or Z with them. Maybe that’s nothing like regret….nah, no one’s ever thought of ANY of this before. I better not read anything that changes my mind about that. It’s not, haha, like it’s, hoho, MY responsibility, hehe, to inform myself!
It’s kinda like the punching thing. I used to do, many years and bellies ago, full contact martial arts of one variety or another. Genuinely enjoyed it, got reasonably good too. I wonder, does my love of a good scrap suddenly mean that everyone is up for a ruck unless they’re really explicitly withdrawing their consent for one, or look like they might regret it? All those people I sparred with way back when were really into it, so was I. I should use that as my model for behaviour, right? Shit, people, take some fucking responsibility will ya?
I didn’t see that did I?
I did! Hurrah!
BINGO!!!!!! HOUSE!!! HOUSE!!!! What do I win?
Fucking rape victims. With their fucking regrets and irresponsibility. Fucking not saying no in the right way for me. Personally, unless someone has screamed “no!” for twenty hours in seventeen languages until they are hoarse, killed my family, committed triple genocide of anyone who looks a little bit like me, written to David Cameron AND Yvette Cooper, slapped Nigel Farage (always good), complained to my mum, stamped on my scrotum, stapled my ears to a Louis XIV chair whilst reciting “Jabberwocky” backwards in Sanskrit, tattooed “NOT UP FOR SEXYTIME!” on my winkle, and hopped on one foot wearing a fuchsia kimono then I’m getting me some mixed fucking messages.
It’s almost like my wang is an unstoppable force of nature like gravity. I have no control over my actions. It’s just totally nothing to do with me….
…because WANG means I have no responsibility to establish clear consent. WANG!
Shit. I mocked. I feel bad. I appear to have regretfully had a Bingo Sex Wee In My Pants. HOW DARE MY PANTS BE SO IRRESPONSIBLE! I bet they regret it now. I should be hearing from the Internet PantyNazis any moment now. Right, guys? HUH!? HUH!?
Louis
*Sarcastic. Do I need to say this?
With strangers? No. Never. Especially not with someone who is currently incapacitated beyond the capability to give meaningful consent.
Even if it isn’t your intent, that’s the effect of what you’ve been saying.
I don’t believe you’re a longtime reader voltova, if you were how you’ve been treated would be no surprise.
For those playing along at home, it’s simple:
Sex without consent is rape.
Impairment due to alcohol removes the ability to consent.
Therefor sex with the impaired is rape.
It doesn’t matter how she got drunk, once she was impaired enough to be unable to give meaningful consent having sex with her is rape. To say she was responsible is victim blaming.
That piece was fantastic and really thorough – many kudos to Mark Oppenheimer for going through so much effort to make it so detailed, with so much supporting background, and for being willing to put it out there despite what I’m sure will be a flurry of shit from the big players all the way down to the likes of volyova, who simply refuse to understand that when men treat women badly it isn’t the women’s fault.
HAHAHAHAHA of course Sara Mayhew is right up there in the comment section at the article, desperately trying to convince someone, anyone, that everyone mentioned in the article harasses her.
volyova @ 45,
But you are supporting Shermer’s actions – by trying to shift the blame onto one of his victims. This one has explained at length exactly how she was deliberately rendered incapable of consent by someone who then went on to sexually assault her.
I’m not sure what the law says where you are but in most jurisdictions penetration without consent is rape. Rape is a major crime and a crime of violence. In this particular case it was preceded by manipulative behaviour therefore not even you can dismiss it as an accident.
If Shermer had knocked this woman out with a brick or a wine bottle, if he had put drugs in a single drink he brought her you would believe it was a criminal act. But if he renders her semi-conscious and puts her in a position from which she doesn’t have the means to escape then somehow we should just pat him on the head and – this is the incredible bit – tell her she should not have got herself into that position. That is victim blaming.
That is also as weak and as inexcusable as Randi’s “boys will be boys” line. Or do you think that women should spend the whole of their lives in fear of rape because the powerful men who know all about Shermer’s “bad behaviour” are not prepared to treat their female colleagues as fellow human beings?
And, in case you haven’t noticed, rape is not about sex but about power. Unless, of course, you want to argue that Michael Shermer is so horrible that he has no means of getting laid. That would at least hang together logically.
Volyova – did you miss where Giliell and I told you that the law absolutely recognises that alcohol impairs capacity to consent? That was you claimed beef with the situation so I just wanted to check you understood that now.
IRRESPONSIBLE ENVELOPING DRUNK VAGINAS!!!!*
Willies exempt.
Louis
*SO the name of my forthcoming punk, polka and pop band.
Fossil Fishy, #56,
WHA!?
No that was too complicated. Can you perhaps illustrate it with puppets? Because it sounded to me like you’re saying that people can have things done to them by another person when they themselves are drunk, and that their being drunk doesn’t remove the ability of the other person to not do things to them.
This has literally blown my mind. It is more complicated than rocket surgery. Because if true then all those people I Punched Inna Face™ when they were drunk didn’t automatically take responsibility for their punchable, punchable faces…
….oh god….
….oh no….
….I’m….I’m….I’m A MONSTER!!!!!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!
Actually, no. I’m not. Because if that were true HOW CAN PEOPLE DO BOXING!? Answer THAT feminazis. Bwah ha haaaaa!
Fucking boxing haters.
Louis
(Yes, I know you know, but just in case someone else doesn’t, we’re on the same page here)
Gee, and here you ignore the fact that the victim wasn’t in control of the alcohol situation. It’s not like she was buying her own drinks, and controlling the amount of strength of what was imbibed. Predatory behavior is constantly topping off drinks, making them stronger, so that the victim is unable to judge the amount they have imbibed, and are no longer in control. Your line is straight from the MRA handbook. If you aren’t one, stop sounding like one, and get off the concept of full control in every situation.
Complete this sentence:
“The alcohol content of my blood removes your responsibility to establish my clear consent for any mutual act because…”
Louis
Whoa, Louis, whoa there old buddy!
Look, they took my dolls away, something to do with back taxes or some such.
Allow my do an interpretative dance….
[arabesques alarmingly, pirouettes poignantly, and jetes jauntily]
See. Easy.
And if you buy me a fuchsia kimono you’ve found yourself a lead guitar for IEDV.
Fossil FIshy,
I DO NOT CONSENT TO WITNESSING ARABESQUES!!!! TERRORIST!
Oh wait I get it. Clever.
Kimono in the post. I used the Echo Chamber internal mail (surely an accusation mere moments away?). I marked it “Wake Up Sheeple!”. I also was really nasty in the enclosed letter. Because, well, you know, THAT’S HOW WE ROLL. Which is apparently surprising.
Louis
Volyova
See now, this is where you lost me. Because a “longtime Pharyngula reader” wouldn’t have asked the question you asked in the first place. You would have already seen it answered a thousand times. And you certainly wouldn’t be surprised at the reaction you’re receiving from the people who’ve done the answering.
If she’s too drunk to consent, she didn’t consent. It doesn’t matter if she said no or not. She was too drunk to consent. Also…why the actual fuck would you ask if she said no immediately after you observed that she said she wasn’t in a position where she could? You’re asking a question AFTER you answered it yourself, in the same damn sentence. So apparently, in Reality According to Volyova, being unable to say no is just like saying yes and if you don’t say no, even if it’s because you can’t, then you’ve consented to anything anyone wants to do to you, even if they’ve orchestrated the situation so that you wouldn’t be able to consent.
That’s a fine little Catch 22 isn’t it? You have to be insane to get sent home from the war but the simple fact of wanting to go home means you must be sane. I got you drunk so you couldn’t stop me but the fact that you were too drunk to stop me makes it your responsibility, not mine.
Ok well this has gotten out of hand pretty quickly. I sincerely apologise if my remarks regarding alcohol and consent offended anybody, this was not my intend, I’m not trolling or trying to troll and genuinely wanted to post something regarding responsiblity when drunk.
Gregory, your point about the law not being a good indicator of whats right and wrong, a good point well made and thank you.
Hazelwood – No I hadn’t seen that post when I was writing my second post.
Louis – I have absolutely no clue what on Earth you’re on about, such a weird stream of consciousness was your post.
I am quite shocked at the responses here but I suppose it’s not surprising, I can see how I could have come across as making excuses for Shermer and his predatory behaviour- I should stop shaking slightly and calm down as I write this.
I DO NOT want to victim blame, I DO NOT want to enable abuse, I AM NOT Supporting Michael Shermer or his actions, if anything I have said in previous posts made you believe I was then take this as the new gospel. I was simply trying to make the point that you are still somewhat responsible for your own actions when drunk, if you are not then every person who has ever slept with someone whilst they were drunk and now has hazy memories of the incident you’re saying, was raped.
~Is this the case? Because if so then I disagree.
Also, almost as an afterthought, Alison is not claiming she was raped, she’s not making that accusation, why are some of you making it on her behalf? Actually ignore the question it was rhetorical.
Take your own advice, and stop digging.
You made one comment 3 years ago, and after a long silence, you’ve re-emerged to die on this hill? I don’t think you’ve been paying much attention in those years, or you’d know your questions have been answered strongly and clearly in that intervening period, many times.
volyova
^ This is inconsistent with
^ this. You are still ignoring the fact that Shermer orchestrated this situation. Shermer made sure her drink was topped off all night, while not drinking anything himself. He created a situation wherein it was extremely difficult for her to keep track of how much she’d had to drink and didn’t realize how much she’d had til she was already very drunk. While he purposely stayed sober. He offered to walk her back to her room and then walked her back to his own. This is not a thing that just happened while she was drunk. It is something someone deliberately did to her.
And this is what happens when you don’t read shit. She used the word rape in her original communication with PZ in the famous “Grenade” thread. She said in the article that she regrets using that word, not because she doesn’t think that’s what it was, but because of the reactions she got.
You are somewhat responsible for your own actions when drunk. You are at no point responsible for the actions of someone else, especially those actions that someone else actively took to ensure that you were too drunk to be completely responsible for your own actions, including consent to sex.
Getting drunk isn’t a crime. Having sex isn’t a crime. Having sex with someone who can’t legally consent is. Deliberately maneuvering that someone into a situation where she is unable to consent might not be a crime, depending on the jurisdiction, but it’s an utter failure of basic human respect and morality.
Listen to PZ. You’ve picked the wrong hill to die on.
If you have sex with someone who is incapable of giving meaningful consent, it’s rape.
If someone says they want to get drunk and fuck that might be different, but only if that discussion happens before the intoxication. Mind you, even that makes me uncomfortable, I want the people I sleep with to be fully aware and capable of withdrawing consent at any time. I want to know that what I’m doing is welcomed, not just guessing at it. Because unless you’ve discussed every possible sexual act beforehand you could step over a line and not know it until they’ve sobered up.
Stream of consciousness?
Hmmmm. Ah well.
Let me run something by you. Imagine you encountered a creationist. Imagine the creationist said the universe is ~6000 years old. Imagine you were in a position where you knew that wasn’t the case, the evidence supported you in this utterly. Imagine every day for a few years you had either the same creationist or a group of different creationists spouting the same lines at you, based on the same ignorance of the evidence or lack of reasoning about it. Is there any point in that period where you would recognise a pattern of behaviour on behalf of that creationist/those creationists? Is there any point at which you might, just might, mock the umpteenth creationist or the umpteenth iteration by the same creationist?
Welcome to “being that creationist”.
You don’t exist in a vacuum. Your comments contradict themselves as others have pointed out infinitely more politely and absent of mockery than I am willing or indeed capable. You’re not the first “creationist” to comment in exactly the manner you have. Making the same flawed arguments. Perhaps, just perhaps, the reason you are getting the push back you are getting is because what you have posted is spectacularly counterfactual, poorly reasoned, and also quite destructive. Maybe trying to comprehend that simple possibility will help you to some degree.
{Sigh} Where to begin? If you cannot comprehend pretty heavy handed, leaden mockery, I’m not sure there IS a place to begin.
Also, Ron Burgundy style “Well that escalated quickly” is pretty funny. I’m impressed.
Louis
Also, if you’re unsure whether you have consent, unsure whether the person you’re with is too drunk to consent? And you initiate sex anyway? You’re willing to rape. Even if that person doesn’t wake up the next morning and call it rape, you’ve shown that the possibility that you don’t have consent is not a deterrent to you.
This should be emblazoned in hundred-foot neon letters so everyone can see it clearly.
And will someone remind volyova that a lack of capacity to consent does void a contract? The lack of capacity can arise due to many causes including age (a minor), mental disability (illness, injury), or drunkenness. Even contract law, NOT a touchy feel-y area of law, recognizes that no consent means no deal!
So why the big surprise that no consent to sex due to incapacity, means one who proceeds without consent is committing a crime?
And also this.
Oh for flying fuck sake! I’ve had it up to HERE with this “personal responsibility” shit. No matter what the issue, be it sexual assault or poverty, you can be sure it’s used by some smug asshole looking to excuse whatever privilege they possess or want for themselves. The “Just World Hypothesis” is far from just.
volyova, we don’t give a rat’s ass what you intended. Only the results matter.
Whether you realize or not, YOUR ARE blaming the victim. YOU ARE enabling abuse. YOU ARE defending Michael Fucking Shermer and other creeps like him. YOU ARE doing it right now when you come onto this forum to lecture us about personal responsibility and how rape victims share some of the blame for the assault. YOU do it each and every time you try to excuse or downplay abuse by shift blame from victimize to the victim. YOU do it each time you sift through and nitpick a case to find someway to pin fault on the abused (e.g she was drunk, she wore a revealing dress, she was looking for casual sex, she was a sex worker, she was in a “sketchy” neighborhood, etc.).
We don’t care if you disagree because you are fucking WRONG.
Preach!
Amazing how Shermer gets completely removed from the discussion. Classic victim blaming in action. Why does “our side” have to keep bringing up that this was at no point something that Alison did to herself. I know “nothing to see here, move along”, but I still get gobsmacked every time I see it in action.
volyova @ 68;
Ah, well, isn’t that nice? It is always good to feel that you have succeeded in communicating your point to someo…
How. Dare. You.
You insult the most humorous of Pharyngulites? This cannot be born! I strike you contemptuously across the face with my best cyber-dueling glove, and challenge you to meet me on the field of virtual honour.
Memes and tropes at dawn. sir/madam! To the death of one’s credibility!
Hey, there was this guy lying in the street the other night. Nicely dressed, expensive suit, cool boots. He had small feet for a guy and I have big feet, so I thought “what’s the harm?” It’s not the first pair of boots I’ve been given in my life, and surely he has made presents before, too. He didn’t say no and he even seeme to like it when I removed them from his feet and clearly helped me. Seemed a bit small for him after all.
What do you mean that was theft???
+++
I’m also having one of these cases of femvisibility: When some dude replies to all the comments except to the ones of clearly female-coded commenters…
Chris Tygesen @ 71;
This. A hundred times this.
Also, is there anything in this world Sara Mayhew will not make all about herself?
Real quick – what you are saying helps excuse and enable rape. So, you aren’t being called a rape enabler because someone else is being a meany-mean-pants, it’s because you are helping enable rape. That’s what rape enablers do. It’s what a rape enabler is.
Thinking otherwise is like saying that you’re not a racist, you just don’t like black people. That’s what being racist is.
It might get someone to change their harmful behavior. Which is nice to the people that harmful behavior might harm.
If smart people who typically have useful opinions are insulting your behavior, you can assume that they’ve all lost their collective mind – or you could assume you might not be realizing how your behavior might be problematic.
Your call.
Thank goodness you correctly recognize you’re no expert.
If you were, it might occur to you that the questions isn’t “Is most consent implied?”, but “Should consent be implied?” Or to put the question another way, “Should you seek clear consent before engaging in sexual behavior with someone?”
Does that help make the issue clearer for you?
Ok, if you can’t post your opinions here, how did we read and respond to them?
You did post your opinions here. See? They’re right up there in the thread. Some of them are even in this post.
What you can’t expect is to garner only positive comments on your opinions.
In any case, you have the choice to believe that the folks here are just being meanies to you, and take your bat and your ball and go home.
Or you can remember why you have been reading this blog for as long as you have, and recall all of the other times that someone posting egregiously awful stuff was called out by the folks here.
Remember the ones that said “You guys are mean! I’m outta here!”
Remember the ones that said “Hunh – you guys might actually be right, let me think about it”.
Which camp do you intent to inhabit?
Sorry, that was per volyova @ 51.
Shhh. The people with full bodily autonomy are talking.
Shermer’s lie about the gossip surrounding his having sex with Smith without her consent seems peculiar:
So, according to Shermer, two guys wanted to have sex with Smith, but she wanted to have sex with Shermer. So the “dreadlocks guy” (code for black?) and his friend started spreading a rumor that Shermer got Smith drunk to have sex with her? That. does. not. make. any. sense.
Also, does “I admit that I was running my mouth off” sound like something a 20-something dreadlocks guy would say?
Nope, it’s worse than that. He hasn’t responded to me so it appears he’s only responding to obviously male-coded commenters.
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- @81;
That sounds like the worst superpower ever…
It is always telling when people consistently refuse to respond to posters with feminine sounding nyms who specifically direct comments toward them. Trying to turn a conversation about rape culture into a doodz only zone is problematic to say the least.
volyova #45
Wait, did she drunkenly walk into Shermer’s Shop of Sex and told him she wants to have sex?
Garbage analogy is garbage.
Gregory,
It deeply hurt to be so dismissed by Volyova.* Luckily I was drunk at the time so what gets done to me is my responsibility.
Louis
*You know I wasn’t. I know I wasn’t. Pretty much everyone knows I wasn’t. Pretty much everyone knows that someone somewhere will try to use that joke as some sort of proof I am claiming PTSD and therefore insulting war veterans or so etching equally asinine. Seriously, this shit is becoming unmockable. It’s too damned easy.
Re: the long dead yet still apparently needing to be flogged rotting horse carcass of “personal responsibility” as it pertains to victims:
If I am inebriated, I am responsible for the harm I do to other people. I am responsible for the consequences of what I do to them. The only way someone can make the argument of victim responsibility in the case of rape is if they believe rape is an action the victim takes against their rapist. Is that what you really want to be arguing, volyova? That being raped by a rapist is something the victim does to the person who violated them via their consumption of intoxicating substances?
Rape is not something the victim does to their rapist, full stop. Therefore the “personal responsibility” argument fails.
Let me put it a different way–
If a driver, sober or drunk, drives onto the sidewalk and mows down a bunch of folks, whether by deliberate action or negligent, is it the responsibility of the pedestrians for being in the driver’s way, or for legally walking in a location that was so close to traffic? Are they more at fault or less if they tried to wave the driver off, and where does the blame belong for their injuries if the pedestrians were too intoxicated to realize what was happening? What if the driver claims they were simply playing a car dodging game, and if the pedestrians didn’t want to play they ought to have not been on the sidewalk in the first place, or at least ought to have remained sober so their reflexes wouldn’t have been impaired, or shouldn’t have worn such brightly colored clothing because it made them easy targets, and besides which, some of the people that got run over were just standing there, smiling, they obviously wanted to get hit; it’s not like the driver mowed down the ones who were screaming and running away from him, he’s not violent, fer chrissakes. Would you buy any of that? Would you assign blame to the victims then?
Chris Tygesen, #86,
You better be heterosexual, cis, moneyed/professional middle class or better, and white otherwise there will be people with priority here. KNOW YOUR PLACE!!!!!
;-)
Louis {Tongue EXTREMELY in cheek}
P.S. Fossil Fishy, CEASE YOUR WOMAN’S PRATTLE! I suspect you have been drinking. Don’t make me ignore your comments with womanliness and drinky things.
Oh Louis, why do you deny my sweet, sweet milt?
Volyova,
1) FREEZE PEACH!
You can (at the sufferance of PZ, as is the case for all of us) “speak” here freely. No one here has to like what you say (again, PZ being the exception, it’s his dime that keeps the place running, his to manage as he sees fit, no matter how much any one may or may not disagree. He owes no one a platform).
The corollary to that is that (see PZ related caveats above) anyone else gets to say what they like. Whether or not YOU like it. Here’s a pro tip: (unintentional???) rape apologetics (which you’ve done regardless of your intent. Happens to the best of us, fret ye not. I’ve done it. I just hope I learned not to) are going to get you some serious criticism. Some of which will probably be phrased harshly. It’s your choice to engage with that as you see fit.
What makes you free also makes others free. So please, within the confines that the owner of the blog sets for all of us, comment as you want. Others will do the same and no one has to like any of it.
As Anri put it beautifully:
2) Most people here have better things to do than educate the wilfully passive aggressive (“I’m gonna get insulted for this”), the wilfully ignorant (“I didn’t read…”), the self contradictory (“if she couldn’t say no, why didn’t she say no?”), the unselfcritical (“I’m not engaging in rape apologetics”) or the terminally clueless. And yet people are. Some nice. Some nasty. Some serious. Some mocking. And all points in between and thereabouts. You could see that engagement as complimentary regardless of “tone”. People have bothered to waste their time on you. Maybe the message is more important in this instance than the tone.
Something to pop in your fish tank to see if it floats. To paraphrase the execrable Gus Hedges from Drop the Dead Donkey.
Louis
Milt? Can I punch it? Has it been drinking? Is it responsible? Is it wearing a short chromosome? Stop pretending you have milt. We all know you are a roe-person. Regardless of whether or not that is true, it’s truthy. At least for the sake of convenience.
Louis
Cyrano – I always find it especially creepy when guys with daughters are super sexist. But Penn takes it to a new level by using his daughter to justify his sexism.
Akira – nice comment; you might find this link interesting:
http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org
The Frozen Peaches are all in Stephanie’s Van
+++
Well, volyova can be at ease, Richard Dawkins agrees with them
What an asshole.
Also, someone supposedly committed to rationality who would deliberately impair the functioning of another person to exploit them…not so committed to rationality (either his own or the victim) as he thinks…
Oh, he’s rational:
A. Boner dry.
B. Boner-wetter nearby.
C. Boner-wetter unwilling.
D. Alcohol giveth the desire, but taketh away the ability, or something.
E. Put alcohol in Boner-wetter.
F. Do not put alcohol in Boner.
G. …
H. Profit!
@volyova
Using the Cee-Lo Green defense?
Green pleaded no contest to drugging a woman without her knowledge, but still says the sex was consensual.
He tweeted after court: “People who have really been raped REMEMBER!!!” and: “If someone is passed out they’re not even WITH you consciously! so WITH Implies consent.”
http://www.complex.com/music/2014/09/cee-lo-green-tries-to-define-what-rape-is-on-twitter
Well now. This is mighty interesting.
I wonder, do I and some of my fellow sceptics and atheists vocally, publicly, and enthusiastically take….oooooohhh let’s say “homeopaths”* and sundry drivel merchants to task for exploiting the desperate, clueless, ignorant, vulnerable or just down right cupid people of this world (as we have all been at one point, are now about some things and will be again)?
Why yes we do.
Is that perhaps due to the ethical stance that, even if someone really wants to be exploited and has every right to consensually engage in their own exploitation as far as such a thing is possible (and it is, I get wages!), the deliberate, conscious exploitation of someone in a vulnerable position is, for want of a better word, “bad”? It’s why we have campaigns against false advertising, why my own industry (pharma) gets the criticism (not enough that’s accurate or good IMO) and oversight (no way near enough) that it does especially when it exploits vulnerable people, why politicians lying through their teeth get criticism etc. No one expects that exploitation will never occur, that we should live in bubbles, and one day we’ll all live in a utopia. What people expect is that we set up societies in such a way that exploitation and sundry things are minimised to the fullest extent practically possible. In the case of financial exploitation that’s probably non-zero. In the case of rape (the small percent of rapists that are “stereotypical stranger” rapes aside), it’s pretty easy to be zero: as an individual, don’t violate someone’s sexual consent, always get explicit, clear consent before any sexual act. Pretty much like I can get explicit, clear consent for cooperative, mutually enjoyable violence in a boxing ring or dojo. It’s just not that difficult.
Louis
*I’ll take “Louis’ hobby horses” for $1000 please Alex.
Giliell #98
The Dawkins tweet is gone.
What did it say?
You know I always used to find the American Christian justification for Christianity, namely that it is needed so we don’t do awful things, to be so strange. Surely they don’t really need a supernatural being to tell them not to treat others poorly.
But this is just an atheist version – if the other person doesn’t actively stop me from exploiting or harming them, well then that must mean it is OK. Because heaven knows I can’t be expected to just restrain myself!
Chigau,
“The REAL Rape Culture: “All occurrences of sexual intercourse are rape unless there is certified evidence to the contrary.””
Which is, as ANIFULNOZ, specious bullshit on a level that I feel Deepak Chopra could not achieve with double quantum and at least three references to spirit.
And that is saying something.
Louis
Volyova I don’t think (from your comment in this thread) that you are an MRA or an asshole, and I think you make a point worthy of a serious rebuttal. The reason we don’t consider Alison culpable is because, as many others pointed out, it’s an important principle that complete responsibility rests with the aggressor.
It’s not a perfect rule – no rule is – but it’s the best we’ve got. The alternative opens the door for victim blaming not just in cases like this that you or others might consider marginal or ambiguous, but even in more egregious ones. The aggressor must always be held responsible.
In this case, there are also discrepancies of age, power, experience, and Schermer’s obvious bad intent. The bottom line is that there are very few things one can do to product oneself against a sneaky and determined predator, whether that predator is after your body, money, or something else.
I agree that people should (and usual can) be aware of how much they’re drinking and that it’s a bad idea to get impaired in any situation. But that’s not at all the main issue here.
Opps,,, HTML tag failure. NEEEEED CAFFEINE!
I just read Richard Dawkins’ tweets on the subject.
Here is a link with a screencap: https://twitter.com/SallyStrange/status/510426078981414914
I was already angry (it’s #FergusonFriday) but now I’m furious. I hate Richard Dawkins. I am no longer interested in expressing any appreciation for the good he’s done via science education and atheist outreach. It’s done. The scales are officially tipped. His downsides outweigh his good sides. He is a liability. Atheists are better off without Dawkins.
this was the best part of the article:
>>>So on Aug. 20, 2013, he used the website Indiegogo to set up the “Michael Shermer Legal Fund,” to aid Shermer if he chose to sue for libel. By Sept. 19, the fund had exceeded its goal of $5,000 — its total was $8,289 — and was closed to new donations.
the culture IS changing for the better, and people like PZ and we commenters have contributed to that!
For those who can’t see the image, Dawkins’ tweet reads: “Officer, it’s not my fault I was drunk driving. You see, somebody got me drunk.”
I didn’t really see Randi as defending anything at all. If anything I thought he WAS implying that men shouldn’t get drunk.
Further Tweets from Prof Dawkins comment about drink driving, apparently as if this was analogous. Doubtlessly the great man will descend to inform us of his humour, sarcasm, nuance, subtlety or sundry reasons we didn’t agree with him automatically. Or even if he was saying something to agree with.
It’s those Irresponsible Drunk
Engulfing VaginasDrivers again. Going aroundengulfing innocent penisescrashing into inanimate objects that have no agency. Just like men.Why, that wouldn’t be an incredibly insulting, belittling, inaccurate and discriminatory view of men as mere things now would it?
Naaaaaaah.
Louis
What more needs to be said about a man like that?
he doesn’t remember.
Amazing. So he got “what is this corpse doing in my bed?” drunk and didn’t remember? Or was it “what on earth is this wet spot?” drunk? Or “excuse me, m’am, have we met? How did you get in my bed?” drunk?
Seriously, the “I was too drunk to remember” story translates to “I am a danger to others and myself” if it were true – which, of course, it isn’t. Because if were true he couldn’t claim to know he hadn’t forcibly raped and murdered a busload of nuns while he was too drunk to remember. He would be unable to say “no, I didn’t do that” to any accusation at all.
Besides, if he were that drunk he wouldn’t be sure he could add another check to his score-card, which would defeat the apparent purpose of the whole exercise.
I’m apparently too sober to close my tags :(
Dawkins also references a ‘certain type of feminist’ who ‘REALLY respect women instead of patronising them as victims’
I agree with Sally Strange although I’m not really convinced he did much good to begin with. He lacks the empathy I think is required in leadership aimed at social change.
He’s defending the actions of men who assault people while drunk because alcohol is apparently a magical assault-causer, despite the fact that only a minority of men assault people while drunk.
This is obvious. Check your brain. Apparently the patriarchy virus has had a resurgence in your consciousness.
Absolutely. And it doesn’t seem clear to me that he was necessarily seeking to be a leader of a social change movement. He, like other white atheist men, never made the connection from “make the world an easier place to be an atheist” to “make the world an easier place to be a human of any sort.” It’s that lack of empathy you’re talking about. He clearly does enjoy the accolades that come from being seen as a leader, though.
I guess that’s true. I don’t think it’s the same thing as “boys will be boys” though. It’s more like deflection blaming the alcohol.
WTF Dawkins. What what the the fuck fuck.
doublereed @ 112:
What is missing is Randi explicitly condemning Shermer for what he did when he was drunk. (Not that rape is any better when the attacker is sober.)
SallyStrange @ 111
I used to think that after all of the denunciation atheists in general have levelled against RCC for their sexual abuse scandals, especially after Cat-lick creeps try to blame the victims (Bill Donohue comes first and foremost to mind), that we’d quickly and universally turn our backs on any atheist activist caught doing the same thing that their clerics were doing to children. We atheists would not cover-up and protect them and intimidate the victims as Holy Mother Church had their pedophile priests. We are better than the theists. We have morals. We have ethics.
Boy, was I ever fucking wrong!
Guess what Richard Dawkins also said on Twitter, which he then deleted? Guess.
“The REAL rape culture: ‘All occurrences of sexual intercourse are rape unless there is certified evidence to the contrary.”
He really, actually did.
Don’t believe me? There’s screen shots.
Really? Really?!?
“I’ve just heard that he misbehaved himself with the women, which I guess is what men do when they are drunk.”
*scratches head*
You having some kind of cognitive dissonance about Randi’s status as a not-horrible person or something?
Sally is right. You’re not even making sense. READ WHAT RANDI SAID.
Saying that’s not “boys will be boys” is literally saying water is not wet.
I agree. I think most of what he’s done is just him wanting to be right and having others agree with how terribly right he is.
@111
Wow. Gross. And stupid beyond words.
Louis @105, is that a tweet too or are you being sarcastic?
Sorry – I was responding to #119 in case that wasn’t clear
Maybe. Is Randi a horrible person?
It sounds to me like he’s more woefully naive of experiences with alcohol. Or at least pretending to be.
Sorry that was response to @123 SallyStrange
How insulting. I wonder if the author is aware of all the definitions of that phrase.
doublereed: STOP IT. Stop it. Don’t be dishonest.
Stop. It.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the King of the Skeptics!
SallyStrange @ 119
I’d be willing to bet for Shermer and Jillette it’s more like “make the world an easier place for ME.” They’re sexual habits or attitudes about women aside, their support for cut-throat capitalism, opposition to taxation, AGW denial, etc. seem to indicate such. Any support they have for atheism and church-state-separation is also ultimately self-serving.
I’m sorry about that.
Could someone point me in the general direction of Randi being a horrible person? The cognitive dissonance things sounds right.
Actually, Dawkins must think that men have LESS self-control and self-agency than inanimate cars do, because you can outfit a car with a control device that, get this, decides you’re too drunk to make the decision to drive on your own and refuses to start. But men, apparently, lack that ability, according to Dawkins.
I have no idea. It’s irrelevant, anyway. The real question is, does the prospect of Randi being a horrible person cause you so much cognitive dissonance that you can’t even read the words that are right in front of your face and have their meaning translate correctly into your brain? Because that seems to be what is happening.
Louis @105
Seriously, Dawkins has gone into full Thunderf00t mode with this one. I wish he would just stop talking.
Stop moving the goalposts, doublereed. You’re being dishonest. Do you understand that everyone can see what you’re writing?
This is about you denying that Randi did a boys will be boys.
Acknowledge that.
doublereed, if Randi is
Randi’s either not living in our universe, or he’s a horrible person. I’m betting that he’s in the same universe we are. Please stop making excuses for him.
Professor Dawkins, go home. You’re drunk.
And then Dawkins goes on a tear retweeting a bunch of people whining about radical feminism.
Facepalm time.
Yep. Dawkins is on the attack. He’s got feminism and rape culture in his sights. We’re his enemies.
Calling-out-Dawkins-definitively-because-your-voice-will-be-heard-time, I think.
Oh…
My previous post was intended to satirize Professor Richard Dawkins inane and misogynistic comments about rape and intoxication and is in no way an insinuation that he is actually in a state of inebriation.
However, it is intended to imply that he is an asshole.
Josh #122
For some reason, I didn’t even feel angry when I read that. I just wanted to laugh. It is SUCH an absurd and evil thing for a leading public intellectual to contribute to the conversation about a very serious issue.
I’m done with all things Dawkins too. I used to hold certain victim-blaming attitudes about women too, without realizing it. But then that realization happened in a flash. I wish I could remember what the tipping point was. It was the last of the indoctrinations of my upbringing that I discarded. I tried to hang on and give Dawkins time to maybe experience a similar epiphany through a blog post or a tweet on his page. But alas.
Holy shit! BINGO!!!
Never in the history of privilege has so much been owed to so many by so few!
Dawkins has just achieved “has-been” status. Is now working on “crank”
doublereed: Binary thinking much? Do we really need to tell you to fucking look up the word “privilege”? People can say stupid and assholish things without necessarily being evil to the core.
And of course fucking Richard Dawkins. He shows just how you go beyond simple “oh he’s just privileged and contributing to rape culture because he has a blind spot” to “he is actively anti-woman”. The amount of bluster, the tone of his response to people who try to wake him the fuck up, the fact that he continues blustering and making the same “mistakes” over and over despite being amply informed about why people are irked by it, and his seeming enjoyment of making enemies in this specific sphere….that is how you tell the difference from unthinking bias and active malevolence.
Well I guess I have learn’t a lesson today.
I have been reading this website everyday for many years now, Pharyngula, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Almost diamonds etc etc. I don’t make it habit to read the comments and so I don’t know what issues have been done to death by the community. I will make sure not to post anything on Pharyngula again, it is not a pleasant experience.
@hillaryrettig: Thank you for the only reply I have had which hasn’t taken aim at me, insulted me outright or dismissed anything I had to say.
@PZ:
Take your own advice, and stop digging.
Very well consider this the last post I shall make, I know you don’t want an echo chamber here but do want to dismiss some of the more egregious commenters, it must be a fine line.
Most of what I’ve heard here have been people yelling “MRA, rape enabler, victim blamer, Dawkins agrees, Ceelo Green agrees…….” it’s simply not worth the abuse.
Oh, and when I checked earlier, Richard Dawkins had already baleeted the real rape culture tweet and was going on with fans about how “Of course it was sarcasm! Get a sense of humor! Always sarcasm! British wit! HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR”. I don’t know how he keeps finding new lows, but he is managing quite well. He is bound to hit the fucking molten core of the Earth at some point.
Oh cry me a river! Quit with the martyr bullshit and just stick the fucking flounce!
#149 – ooooh!!! Tone trolling!! I don’t think there’s ever been a tone troll here, before!!!
You heard him! Everybody be nice!!
volyova #149,
Yeah sure, they were being rude. But not as rude as you saying inebriated women should be held a little bit responsible for what someone else does to their bodies during their moment of mental haziness.
volyova
Yes. That was certainly the issue here.
Bless your heart.
I find Randi’s comments altogether strange. What does he mean ‘Which I guess is what men do when they are drunk’. Is he really suggesting he is never around drunk men and so doesn’t know what drunk people are like? Or that he thinks it is a straight thing he’s not privy to? Or that drunk men are universally arseholes who must harass women?
(Don’t get me wrong, it is clear he is attempting to engage in apologetics here, I just don’t even understand his rationale on that last bit).
I wonder if there has ever been a case on the internets in which someone has made a comment like “you are all mean to me! I won’t be back!” and the whole comment thread is filled with apologetic messages asking them to please stay?
Didn’t The Hollies have something to say about that?
Sweet tone-troll let this brief snark be your immortal monument.
@volyova
I was assaulted in a tent while staying at a youth hostel in Italy. I had gotten slightly drunk with two British guys who were handsome and seemingly pleasant. I got locked out of the youth hostel, and they let me stay in their tent. I said, “Great thanks, but no sex, okay?” They laughed and said “Of course!” I later awoke to find the two of them on top of me, one of the penetrating me with their fingers. I surmise that I wasn’t quite as drunk as they thought I was because they stopped when I wiggled and said, “Ow ow, that hurts.”
Perhaps, before you flounce completely, you can explain to me precisely how much responsibility I bear for that event. If I had been drunker, would I be more or less responsible? If I had been so drunk that I hadn’t awakened and they actually succeeded in PIV rape, would that make me more or less responsible for being raped while drunk?
Thanks in advance.
P.S. If you’d been reading the comments, you’d know that I’ve told this story several times on Pharyngula already. Asshole.
Allegedly regular reader amazed that the Pharygnula comment section is fierce. Totally believe you.
You are dismissing rape because you don’t think alcohol impairs ability to consent. Which is:
1. Odious, because you are fucking dismissing rape.
2. Stupid, because alcohol impairment limiting your ability to consent is a virtually universal consideration, across statelines and across subjects.
You were given a far gentler treatment than you deserved, honestly. Fuck off.
Oh for fuck’s sake! Look, Volyova re: #149,
When your drivel is THAT predictable (See my #66 comment re: echo chamber) will nothing cause even momentary self reflection for you?
And this is why I drink. Even the eminently mockable are no fun. I’ll go back to self-deprecation, at least it’s moderately more challenging (it isn’t really).
Louis
doublereed @111:
I think you’re avoiding reading Randi’s comments in the right light. It seems like you’re hesitant to believe that he could say something so offensive. I’m sorry but you’re wrong. For whatever reason, you’re not seeing his comments for what they are.
How is this:
Not saying “boys will be boys”?
He says than when drunk, men “misbehave” with women (lumping in a ton of activities, including sexual assault under the typically harmless word “misbehave”, intent, seemingly on diminishing the impact of those actions; or failing to recognize that sexual assault isn’t “misbehaving”).
****
Josh @122:
Yes!
Oh, and if anyone wants to see the Tweet, I blogged about it as soon as Giliell mentioned it in the Dome.
****
volyova @149:
Hey, look at it from our perspective: it’s never pleasant for us to deal with victim blaming taintstains like yourself, so we’re more than happy to never see a comment by you again.
Tone trolling shitwit.
theoreticalgrrrl, #126,
Tragically there was no humour, sarcastic or otherwise, in my quoting of Dawkins. Whether or not HE was being humorous or sarcastic….
…doesn’t actually matter. Something something audience. Something failure mode of clever. Something indistinguishable from real misogyny. Something something something form in the area. Something something maximally charitable reading is still bad. Something doubling down.
{sigh}
It’s all so…..eurgh.
Louis
I know their comments have already been thoroughly dissected for stupidity, but I can’t let this go:
HAHAHAHA fuck you volyova. Did you not read the words you typed, “felt she couldn’t say no”? Rape victims are not always fucking able to say no. And this is deliberate, on the part of the rapist, because they know that if the victim “never really SAID no” then a million rape-supporting jackholes like you– yes, make no mistake, you are supporting rape right now— will pop out of the woodwork and wave around the “personal responsibility” and “regret” bullshit.
And, as a general aside– anyone who has been reading Pharyngula for years but has been ignoring the comments? Is missing out on some of the most interesting and insightful (and funny!) discussion on the internet.
Hazelwood @156:
It reads to me like Randi is lumping a diverse array of actions under the umbrella term “misbehave” without giving any thought to what those actions are. He fails to acknowledge that Shermer wasn’t misbehaving, he was being a sexual predator. He sexually assaulted someone. That’s not misbehavior. Unless you’re a person who doesn’t treat rape as the severe crime it is. And if you don’t do that, you’re enabling Rape Culture, just like our fuckwitted troll in this thread, volyova.
By the way, Dawkins’ “officer” analogy is still up. I think the previous link was just botched (or maybe he put it back up I don’t know how Twitter works). I am fairly certain the “real rape culture” tweet has been fully disappeared though.
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/510314159503065088
Also, all of his anti-feminist shit has been sandwiched between whining about “liberals blame everything but Islam” shit, mostly springboarding off Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne.
This is why we needed Atheism Plus: To disassociate ourselves from these assholes. And since I haven’t already said it: The Oppenheimer piece is great. Sums everything up incredibly well, in a manner that the uninformed and the pathological fence-sitting set will not just knee-jerk reject. It should be spread far and wide so that people will actually know what has been going on in atheism, rather than accepting distortions from the atheist equivalent of Fox News pundits or just plugging up their ears and pretending nothing is happening. It is some much needed light shone on a subject that most people will not bother looking at, because they don’t like the people who are normally using the flashlights.
It really is time to call Dawkins the fuck out, PZ. IMHO, of course.
Oppenheimer quoting Randi:
And they say feminists hate men.
I recall Randi saying he doesn’t do any recreational drugs, in was in his segment debunking Uri Geller. I think he is in fact naive about it, and too reluctant to judge any alcohol related behavior.
I also notice that Shermer’s Skepticblog is shutting down. I guess having one member thrown in prison for fraud and another one rapidly acquiring a reputation as a sexist sleaze means he felt it necessary to eliminate another Internet gossip site, as blogs are known.
I won’t miss it. I only read it for Prothero, anyway.
@Louis
I wasn’t sure if it was a direct quote or not because it seemed too disgusting and obnoxious, even for Dawkins at this point. He’s hitting new lows.
And he fancies himself a Moral Philosopher? Ha. Boring, predicable male chauvinist who thinks he needs to explain what REAL rape culture is to us silly, shrill illogical wimmen. He also knows who the REAL feminists are (the ones that tell him what he wants to hear).
miller:
I don’t buy this for a moment.
Randi is not some youngster fresh off the turnip truck. He’s in his eighties, worked in the entertainment industry (not noted for its commitment to temperance), and, as a magician and a skeptic, has been a keen observer of human behaviour for many years. While I can easily believe that he never drinks, the idea that he’s naive about this isn’t really credible.
@volyova #149
Dude I made my first comment here yesterday after lurking for a few weeks, and since I didn’t spew garbage, everyone was completely civil to me. If you’re getting heat, it’s because you dished it out, not because the regulars are being mean to you.
If the quality of these comments you made are any indication, you won’t be missed.
To volyova:
If they were that drunk, they very likely were raped. Be that a warning to people: If someone is drunk, do not have sex with them. You might be committing rape.
Here’s a tip for all the Shermpologists out there:
Lack of a “no” does not mean “yes”.
I’m sure all you Spocks In Training will be able to figure out what that means and why is the case. I’m also sure that most of you are slyme with an agenda who will dismiss it anyway. But just don’t say no one ever told you.
@ 81 – Gilliell – This seems to be perfect analogy. Thanks, I will be using that one …
Was it the grenade thread where we acquired our band name? If not, it was certainly a rape topic thread.
IIRC we became the Invisible Pixels.
For pity’s sake. There really is no bottom to this barrel, is there.
CCC (Crystal Clear Consent)
* First of all: Understand that if you go forward with initiating sexual activity not knowing if consent exists, you may or may not be raping someone, but you have proved beyond a shadow of doubt that you are willing to rape someone. Black areas make you a rapist, grey areas make you willing to rape.
* Making absolutely sure that consent is obtained and mutually agreed on. This does not include trying for consent when a person is not in condition to grant consent.
* No doubts as to whether consent was obtained.
* No guesses as to whether consent was obtained.
* No assumptions as to whether consent was obtained.
* No doubt as to whether any partner was capable of giving consent at the time.
Crystal Clear Consent Practices:
* Understanding that consent may be withdrawn, by any involved party, at any time. Initial consent does not mean you get to carry on if consent has been withdrawn. In other words, people are allowed to change their mind at any point.
* If you have not had sex with a given person before, mutually understood language with confirmation is the best way to attain Crystal Clear Consent. Relying on body language or assuming consent without clarification is nearly always insufficient with a new partner. Consent that is not communicated is not CCC.
* If your partner is communicating something, do not assume that it has nothing to do with consent.
* If you initiate or offer and are declined in the context of a specifically romantic, sexual, or flirtations setting, do not initiate or offer again until one of the following four occur:
1. the other party has taken a turn initiating/offering and been declined by you.
2. the other party has taken a turn initiating/offering, was accepted by you, but after the activity lapsed you wish to restart.
3. it is an entirely new romantic, sexual, or flirtatious setting.
4. An amount of time has passed that is inverse to the number of times they have accepted your offer before. While it may be acceptable when dating to offer again in a week or in a closer relationship to initiate again after, say, one day [or whatever is the negotiated norm in said relationship] it’s not acceptable to ask someone again if you’ve just met them.
* If you initiate or offer and are declined in a context that is not specifically romantic, sexual, or flirtatious, do not initiate or offer again. Seriously.
* If you’re beginning a new relationship or going for a casual hookup, enthusiasm is key! Your new partner should be enthusiastically and happily involved with you. If no enthusiasm is present, it’s best to go for more communication and put off sex for a while.
* A person who wants consensual sex doesn’t want to commit or experience rape, and a person who rapes does. Whether a given rapist wants their victim(s) drugged, unconscious, frightened, intimidated, trapped, manipulated or tricked, or just pestered until they give in, the rapist wants the end result to be that a rape happens. That includes being forced to penetrate someone else.
* Contrary to what is often thought, consent is not difficult. If you still aren’t clear at this point, read this: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2011/09/20/consent-is-hard/ and this: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/06/if-consent-was-really-that-hard-whiny-dudes-would-fail-at-every-aspect-of-life/
* Don’t want to listen to us? How about MIT:
Effective Consent is:
– informed;
– freely and actively given;
– mutually understandable words or actions;
– which indicate a willingness to participate in
– mutually agreed upon sexual activity.
Giliell:
Invisible Pixel time.
@102 – Louis – i don’t think the vendor analogy works at all, seeing as the victim in this case can’t remember/blacked out. I think it would be more viable if we asked how we’d feel if a vendor approached a passed-out drunk person, put a piece of merchandise in their hand, then took money out of their wallet. Not that this analogy even comes close to being explanatory or satisfying….
@171, You’re right, Randi is 80 something and should know better.
But I would go further. People should know better even when they’re young. When I was a teetotaler, I was only 20. I had trouble distinguishing between different degrees of drunken misbehavior, because I had negative feelings about alcohol in general, and felt they were inappropriate to express aloud. So I was unprepared, when I started drinking, to deal with the amount of sexual assault going on. It would have helped if I knew better.
funknjunk, #180,
I agree with you.
I was using that chap’s own analogy to point out a central hypocrisy to the rape apologetic “arguments” he was making. I.e. that we do, in fact, criticise (and even sue) exploitative vendors all the time. The willingness of the exploited to be exploited/their vulnerability aside, it doesn’t follow that therefore it is moral to consciously exploit them. It’s not the least used allegory in literature (the Walrus and the Carpenter is the first example I can think of off the top of my head) either.
For example, my choice of healthcare/pharma was deliberate. We have absolutely and very very deliberately moved on from the days of “Doc Soandso’s Patent Jollop: It Cures What Ails Ya!”. It doesn’t matter that people were desperate for jollop, begged for it, were entirely complicit in their exploitation by jollop producers. The trend, one of the key directions of long term, sustained effort in healthcare, is that we move away from potentially exploitative, authoritarian jollop as “medicine” towards (however imperfectly, and I am painfully aware of how imperfectly) evidence and science based medicine. We go after the exploiters. We recognise the harm such exploitation does. We try and uphold (again, however imperfectly) an evidence and science based standard because it demonstrably helps more people than the jollop standard. We demand better because better is more consonant with a plethora of shared values, more accurate in it’s reflection of the scientific and clinical data, and because it has demonstrably better outcomes for all concerned. Even, perhaps ironically to some, the exploiters.
Another example, if the situation described in the OP replaced “Shermer” with “Catholic Priest”, and “Alison Smith” with “altar boy”, or better “nun” (and obviously an appropriately analogous situation), would some of our sceptical/atheist “movement” colleagues be so quick to provide apologetic cover? Would Randi be offering “boys will be boys” as readily? I doubt it to be honest. It’s not rocket surgery. Team politics, in groups, out groups, identity etc blind us to the flaws and foibles of those we admire and identify with. I’m doing it right now. I can feel it in my water! I want Dawkins to be “joking” or making a subtle point or be about to pen a withering expose of anti-feminists and rape apologists. I want him to not be the clueless/incorrect/malevolent/whatever knobhead he is currently doing a huge amount of work to be regarding this and similar issues. For fuck’s sake, even my last sentence there is desperate to give the man an out. it’s a basic facet of human psychology, one we’re all prone to to greater or lesser degrees. The only solution is honesty and vigilance, and that too is imperfect.
So whilst my comment was not in any way an endorsement of the vendor analogy, it did and does directly address some of the flaws with it.
Louis
The following two quotes from Dawkins;
and;
Represent a new low for his misogynistic drivel, but are hardly a surprising development. Whatever respect I ever had for his work in skepticism and atheism was dashed to flinders with his obnoxious ‘Dear Muslima’ rant. The good he may once have done, such as it was, has since been comprehensively drowned in a rush of sexist effluvia, with these tweets serving only to highlight how far he has sunk into the mire if unthinking, knee-jerk misogyny.
At this point, it is clear that Dawkins is just another woman hating loudmouth only a couple of notches above John the Other and his fellow bottom feeding bigots at AVfM. Special dispensation should not be afforded to him simply because he is high profile and has a large following. I too would like to add my voice to those advising PZ to call Dawkins out on this. If it were anyone else, I think it likely that PZ would have unleashed the Pharyngula Kraken upon them long since. While it is difficult to accept that a friend has gone over to the dark side, Dawkins could hardly make which side he is on when it comes to feminism and scoial justice any clearer.
Dawkins s a living, breathing examples why the saying ‘no gods, no masters’ is incomplete. We need to add ‘no heroes’ as well, since all these would-be atheist titans inevitably turn out to have feet of clay.
This is even worse than it seems, because of all those who want to dismiss any rape or sexual assault on the part of someone who didn’t immediately go to the cops and report, and don’t have four independent witnesses to the rape or assault.
Shorter Dawkins: What about the menz?! It’s painful, the depth he has sunk into, and he just keeps digging.
volyova – good luck to you. i think it’s a shame when people who say they’re committed to social justice confuse bullying with argumentation.
One thing on that Oppenheimer piece – Melody Hensley has tweeted some corrections regarding her description in it:
) I am not a “young activist”. I am a 37 year old woman and seasoned activist.
2) I am not just someone with PTSD, but a strong, accomplished woman activist that gets things done.
3) I don’t only leave my house twice a week for physical therapy. I have work events and my husband takes me out occasionally.
4) Don’t compare me to other individuals when the reason I cannot do something is directly a result of my PTSD. That’s called ableism.
volyova @ 149;
From your obstinate refusal to listen to what anyone else is saying, i find that doubtful.
Given that PZ has repeatedly directly addressed these issues in the OP of his posts, then even without reading a single comment it should have been easy for you to anticipate how the Horde would respond to your blatant rape apologia. You say you have read Pharyngula for years, and yet you never noticed that it was a progressive, feminist blog? Why should any of us believe you?
You do understand that several pharyngula regulars are rape survivors, right? And we have no way of knowing how many of the lurkers may have experienced completed or attempted rapes. How ‘pleasant’ do you think it was for them when you arrogantly swaggered onto this thread and effectively declared them at least partially responsible for their own rape if any alcohol was involved at any point?
Imagine, if you are able, what it must be like to experience the most terrible event in your life inflicted upon you by another, something so traumatic that it leaves permanent scars on your psyche, and then to be told that you were complicit in what was done to you. Not once, but on innumerable occasions by legions of empathy free arsehats – like yourself – who all feel that their parroting of old patriarchal lies about rape and what women supposedly do to ‘ask for it’ (or how women are incapable of distinguishing rape from a one night stand later regretted) is the single most important insight imaginable. Just try to grasp how that might grind you down and compound the trauma caused by the rape itself. And you whine because your precious feelings were bruised by being told a few home truths and getting a little light mockery on the side (thanks again for the amusing display of Olympic grade lampooning, Louis).
Here is a grand revelation guranteed to blow your mind – it isn’t all about you.
Louis called it back @ 66. You MRAs and rape enablers are so predictable I wonder whether you all got together at some point and agreed on a standard script for online misogynistic arsehole-ery.
Do try to stick the flounce, this time.
hillaryrettig:
There was no bullying. There was a refusal to take rape apologia on board. You might want to learn the difference.
hillaryrettig @ 186;
Like Iyéska @ 189, I draw a clear distinction between calling out rape apologia and victim shaming in open terms on the one hand, and bullying on the other. The nice way of saying something isn’t always the right way of saying something, especially when punching up a dominent social power gradient.
Oddly enough, I am more inclined to save my support and sympathy for rape survivors, rather than for those who are so lacking in empathy that they presume to sit in judgement over what women did that supposedly ‘contributed’ to their rape. I wonder why you don’t.
Perhaps you need to re-examine your own priorities if you truly believe that standing up in defence of rape survivors – a favourite punching bag of the privileged if ever there was one – amounts to ‘bullying’ that requires such supercillious chiding.
hillaryrettig:
lolwut?
hillaryrettig @ 186
I think it’s a shame when people who say they’re committed to social justice confuse standing up for the bullied (i.e. rape victims) with bullying (rape apologia).
But but but, GUUUUUUYS!!!! Meen Werdz™ !!
Because saying something in a mean or impolite way is the same as being sexist/whatever. Because sexism is all about Hurt FeeFees™ . Silly Wimminz!
Louis
Pretty sure that what Hillary meant was that there was argumentation, and volyova mistakenly took it for bullying.
Seriously, you are going to say we were “bullying” the guy who flat out dismisses the idea that having sex with someone who is intoxicated is rape? Tone trolling on behalf of the person whose very first sentence in this thread was “Right, I feel compelled to get myself flamed regarding this article so sit back, relax and here comes some ignorance”? Fucking really?
SallyStrange, did volyova say they were committed to social justice at one point? If true, I missed it.
SallyStrange:
I suppose that’s why she wished volyova good luck. Given Hillary’s history here, I doubt you’re right, but if you are, I’ll happily apologize.
anteprepro
Indeed, I initially reread the comment thinking Hillary must have meant that volyova took argumentation for bullying but I don’t know why she would refer to volyova as someone who says they’re committed to social justice.
If nothing else, you would think that Randi would talk to Shermer about his drinking. Speaking at conferences is part of Shermer’s job, isn’t it? Drinking that impacts or impairs a person’s work and work relationships is defined as problem drinking.
Shouldn’t someone have talked to Shermer about sobriety programs if he was regularly getting drunk enough that he elicited complaints from other conference attendees?
I haven’t been following this issue closely (as Shermer doesn’t matter to me much) so perhaps his problem drinking has already been discussed, but in my work this sort of behavior would send up a big, fluorescent flag that had the words “INTERVENTION REQUIRED” written on it.
sambarge
The problem with Shermer’s drinking is not that he drinks too much,
it’s that he drinks a lot less than the women he pours for.
A lot less.
chigau @200
I certainly get that from the account Smith’s rape but according to Randi, Shermer excused his behavior with excessive alcohol consumption/black out/can’t remember what I did. If I heard that more than once, I’d be insisting on treatment.
But I guess his excuse was just a lie, like the way he pretended to drink scotch while waiting for Smith to get drunk.
No, you guys are right, I’m wrong. Running on 2 hours of sleep here. Nap time.
Akira MacKenzie@151 — just stick the fucking flounce!
I am totally stealing this.
The thing that I find most enraging is that we have to do this repeatedly because of people like Randi providing cover for the rapist known as Shermer. I made it six words into this quote before the rage kicked in.
BAD BOY? No Randi, he is a not a boy. He is clearly a serial rapist who uses your organization to provide him with fresh victims, a hunting ground, and a clueless dude named Randi that will provide him cover by saying assinine things to support him. One complaint is enough. Two complaints should have resulted in him being banned from your conference. But here we are, multiple documented crimes down the road and Randi has the fucking temerity to say that Shermer is a bad boy and if he hears more complaints (but only from people he personally considers to be believable whateverthefuck apologia) he just might have to limit his attendance.!!!! elebenty11!!! I can only hope that his organization continues to have plummeting revenues and conference attendance. Apparently the only way Randi will understand that having rapists as featured speakers is a huge fucking problem is by hitting him in the wallet. PS. FUCK YOU RANDI FOR SUPPORTING A RAPIST
Tethys:
The most popular rape filter ever: boys will be boys.
@kellym #87
Being a European I have only second-hand/film-related experience of US minorities’ slang, but this strikes me a bit odd. Why would a dreadlocks-wearing person not say something like that? Or were you expecting them to say something more hip and gansta?
Either way, Shermer’s excuses are terrible. If he had nothing to hide, why did he try to hide it? Why did he make up multiple stories? If sceptical leaders are supposed to be all rational and freethinking about sex, what would he have to be ashamed about? Why were they supposed to be “vicious rumors” if everything that happened was consensual and above board?
Shermer admits that the encounter happened, so when in his made-up cover-up e-mail he writes:
It’s basically an admission of guilt. He knew people would interpret his behaviour this way, he knew people knew he had gotten her drunk by keeping her glass full and disposing of his own drinks and he knew he had “taken advantage of her”, in other words gotten her into a position where she was unable to consent and he could do what he wanted.
He was afraid people might call that rape and so he had to make up a public story where it didn’t happen while spending the next few years convincing himself it was consensual.
I feel really unsettled after reading the article. Randi, Jillette, Dawkins, and Shermer seemed so heroic to me years ago when I was buying their books, watching their shows, and beginning to find my footing in a world without religion. It stings to find that your icons have been tarnished, that they weren’t the paragons you thought they were. I think I understand how my mother felt, when the pastor she trusted was caught embezzling funds from the church. She defended him, and I couldn’t wrap my head around why she would do that. I think I get it now. But unlike my mom, I’m not going to make excuses for ex-heroes and their bad behavior.
I think Randi’s denial and glossing over these terrible crimes is what kills me the most. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he of all people should know better.
People can be good and bad no matter who they are, religious or not, intellectual or not. I just hate this feeling that I was horribly wrong about people I admired.
Not giving a thought to things before talking about them for the first time in his life could be a pattern with Randi. Do you know what he said about climate change a few years ago when somebody asked him? Not only didn’t he have any clue, not only didn’t he know basic facts, he didn’t even draw conclusions from the facts he did know. It’s deeply embarrassing… and really not a good character trait for someone with an “Educational Foundation” to his name.
Did anyone else notice one glaring omission from Oppenheimer’s article, that PZ was contacted by Shermer’s lawyers? I understand that confidentiality agreements are probably in place, but surely some sort of information regarding that action is available somewhere. Right? And I know, don’t call me Shirley.
most people would have cashed in their retirement fund by now.
what is Randi waiting for?
Randi has spent most of his life as a Performer.
It must be very difficult to quit.
Because people asked…I responded to volyova the way I did because he seemed to me to be raising serious points in a way that indicated he really cared. And because I hoped to convince him, or at least get him to think about the issues. Judging from his response, I might have at least partly succeeded.
Whoever said that I care more about the feeling of rape apologists than rape victims doesn’t understand either me or social justice work. (And is also not a close reader because I described Shermer as a “predator” who needed to be held 100% accountable.) The latter is supposed to be about *winning over your audience.* It’s also about giving people the benefit of the doubt, sometimes over and over and over again, if you see even the slightest change that you can influence them. Read your King, Gandhi, etc.
Look at how PZ addressed Dawkins in the other post: very direct but thoughtful, factual, analytical, spoke to him “in his language” (compared his behavior to creationists).
As opposed to this: “But but but, GUUUUUUYS!!!! Meen Werdz™ !!Because saying something in a mean or impolite way is the same as being sexist/whatever. Because sexism is all about Hurt FeeFees™ . Silly Wimminz!”
But I agree, what I’m describing is more work and not as much fun as random rage and sarcasm and ad hominym attacks.
Y’know, Hillary, this is why people often ignore you. There was no random rage, there was very specific anger. There were no argumentum ad hominems employed, there were insults. You shouldn’t bring up something you can’t spell or know the definition of, it doesn’t make you look terribly smart.
Your constant need to tone troll here is beyond tiresome. You are not one of the people I see, on a regular basis, up to their neck in rape apologia, gender essentialism, or gender equality threads. I know not everyone is inclined to do so, or has the time. That said, you popping in every now and then and deciding to tone troll doesn’t go over well, because you aren’t one who stays in the trenches, so to speak. The rest of us get damn tired of seeing the same of shit for the millionth time.
No one here cares if you wish to argue in a gentle, genteel way. That’s fine, but you can’t ever resist the dig of the tone troll, can you? As you think you’re so above the rabble, perhaps you’d lose the tone troll shit in an attempt to prove that. Give it a try.
So, I don’t know if this is off-topic, but what is with the radio silence over at Patheos? I popped over to see what some other bloggers might think of the buzzfeed piece, and nothing. (At least not since I last checked). It seemed odd.
hillaryrettig
(emphasis added)
Bless your heart.
wow, it’s like you took an example satirizing the people we are criticizing and claimed it was the argument people were actually making.
and you wonder why you’re catching flak?
Iyéska-
a) “constant” need to tone troll–I don’t think the word constant means what you think it does. I also provided a specific example of a nonsubstantive (“random”) attack, although I admit that most of the attacks were substantive.
b) “often ignore you.” LOL, if I were being ignored we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I also sometimes get privately contacted by Pharyngula readers who, like V, don’t want to get piled on so they stay silent but appreciate what I write. // beyond that I’m author of a book on activism (www.lifelongactivist.com) and have an audience for that, too.
c) way to provide a GREAT example of the ad hominem attack I mentioned.
d) “You are not one of the people I see, on a regular basis, up to their neck in rape apologia, gender essentialism, or gender equality threads.”
I appreciate that – and you’re right, I’m a full-on feminist. And I will admit to sometimes sounding prissy and lecture-y in my comments (even to me!). I don’t particularly like that – it’s partly an occupational hazard of being a teacher. I know it turns some people off, and thus makes me a less effective activist. But I lack the light touch of, say, Scalzi. I wish I had it!
i have to log off and write something else now!
Hill
well, no, but at least you spelled it correctly this “tyme”.
一つ」 pompous git
I don’t know if it has been posted but here is a response by Shermer. http://michaelshermer.com/downloads/Shermer-statement.pdf
As you might expect it can be summarised as, didn’t happen because they were seen being civil to me later.
not you Ichthyic
although … sometimes…
jtflorance @207,
It does. But you can re-direct your respect and admiration to people who are more deserving.
Many years ago I read one of Shermer’s books, and talked it up with a few people. I did the same later with The God Delusion. More recently, I had the opportunity to see Dawkins speak, but I passed it up because of his less savory attitudes. Today, I would rather travel to see, or invest the time in reading a book by, someone who has better values than them. Even if the “new” figure has much less name-recognition.
Maybe it’s time to turn away from the old guard and dismantle the pedestals they sat on. It’s better to learn from a diverse set of smart and compassionate peers than it is to worshipfully imbibe the gospel of a handful of icons.
nice ad hom bro.
;)
sis
Scr… Archivist @ 222:
Well said. One thing that PZ tends to highlight is that it’s really important to stop listening so much to the old white guys (and PZ includes himself in that), and listen more to the voices representing women and POC. That’s good advice in all areas.
That said, it doesn’t hurt any less when people you looked up to, and felt grateful to (for helping to further understanding, for helping on critical thought, etc.) turn out to be seriously awful people. I’m missing that hurt, because I came to atheism long ago, before any of these people were prominent in any way. Way back when dinosaurs roamed, I felt grateful to Bertrand Russell and Robert Ingersoll, for clarifying how I felt, and for helping me to think better.
Chigau:
You’re turning down honorary bro status? My, my.
*sniff* hurted my fee fees.
I thought the ” ;) ” was sufficient.
Hillaryrettig @212:
Can you point to any ad hominem attacks in this thread?
Can you point to any “random rage” in this thread (and how would you determine that it was random)?
You’re maligning people because they don’t argue in the same manner or use the same tone that you use. The utilization of insults to express ones emotions is valid, whether you care for it or not. The “random rage” you speak of is very much directed. Not everyone desires to engage with others in a calm, reasoned manner. Some people choose to engage with others passionately, yet reasonably, while using invective to enhance their points. No one’s asking you to like this, but fuck you for slamming those of us who DO argue like that.
Hillaryrettig @217:
I hope you aren’t as condescending to those you teach as you were in this thread.
I have no idea in Hillary’s case, but to be honest, my level of condescension, vulgarity, anger, sarcasm, etc DOES tend to be way higher on the web than in meatspace.
gotta work on that more.
I know others are like this too. Ever meet PZ in meatspace? he’s a very quiet, unassuming guy who is happy to let you lead the conversation. Wonderful company for beers.
Ichthyic:
Mine too, but it’s directed at specific people for specific reasons. The vulgarity, invective, insults, and/or condescension I engage in online is specific to certain type of people, and I don’t encounter those kinds of people in meatspace. I’m normally a sarcastic person, and I do use vulgarity in meatspace, but so far, I’ve not encountered the misogynists, homophobes, transphobes, etc in meatspace (or rather, I probably have, but haven’t been made aware of that fact). That might change one day.
I’m quite sarcastic, AK and AFK. I do reign it in when I see that someone is an honest interlocutor. That said, people who indulge in rape apologia carry so many bells and whistles, it’s quite easy to see them coming from eight miles away. Generally speaking, the horde has very good intuitions when it comes to whether or not someone is an honest / dishonest interlocutor.
I do think that when you’re one of the people who is almost always in the midst of these utterly exhausting threads, fighting against the same old shit you’ve now seen thousands of times (at least), there’s little incentive in treating those offering up apologia with patience and politeness. Most of the time, a genuinely ignorant person is the exception, not the rule.
Why is the buzzfeed article garbled and cut off at the end? When I read it, the last paragraph of the piece runs:
I don’t see anyone else commenting on this — am I the only one seeing this? Is this really where the article ends?
Brian,
That isn’t where it ends, and it wasn’t garbled when I read it. Perhaps refresh?
Tried refreshing a dozen times, tried several different browsers on different OSes, no change.
@Brian
It’s cut off like that for me, too. On three separate devices with two OSes and three different ways to connect to the internet.
Brian, A. Noyd:
It’s that way for me too.
****
Reading a few of the comments made me LOL. Especially the ones from Barbara Drescher and Sara Mayhew.
Brian et al,
I read it last night and it was fine then. :/
@214, yazikus:
Dunno. I no longer expect much from Hemant, at least. His own posts are essentially all reportage, and he regularly gives a platform to Terry Firma, the big-L Libertarian/rape apologist/defender of the Great White Males.
@tethys #204
That’s what I’ve been thinking about through this whole thread. Randi’s remarks indicate that there HAD been complaints, and that Randi knew about them. Why in the world would you invite someone like that back to your event, like, ever?
Misusing the term “ad hominem” needs to become a federal crime.
maddog1129 @240:
To understand where Randi is coming from you have to dismiss what women say and treat their concerns as unimportant. Then it becomes easy to see why you’d invite Shermer back.
Oh no was I too sarcastic to a rape apologist?
How deeply uncivil of me.
Although….I wonder. Is dishonesty, refusal to engage a subject or one’s own potential biases, engaging in wantonly fallacious reasoning, failing to adapt an argument in the face of logic or data civil?
I would argue not.
Now I’m not going to argue that two wrongs make a right, they don’t even though three lefts do. I will argue that being roundly mocked, or dealt with politely, or dealt with angrily, or dealt with any other way can all get the message through. If that’s all we’re considering. But what about communication as performance? As participation? As per-sychology? Is it possible that many functions are being served beyond the ones you see?
Yes.
Gosh, it’s like sarcasm and naughty words do things of use! Why did no one tell me?
Louis
P.S. Hillary, if you think I’ve treated you sarcastically, I have. You want to engage me, please do so by name if at all possible (unless I missed it). Also try thinking that your endless repetition of concern and tone arguments might be grossly misplaced. Sometimes, like now, my use of sarcasm indicates the contempt I have for the argument being made. Because it is worthy of my contempt.
Oh and I am both much nicer and much more sarcastic in meat space. Meatspace communication means you can see body language etc. it’s easier to spot genuine ignorance, honest interlocutors, genuine differences of opinion etc in meatspace. It’s easier to be kind.
Be dishonest however….
….much worse! Sorry to disappoint. (Not sorry)
Louis
Aaaaand again I am reminded of pigeon chess, I.e. Arguing with someone who isn’t arguing honestly is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon coos loudly, knocks over the pieces, shits on the board, and then declares victory. What it doesn’t do is play chess. Personally, I favour shooing the pigeon away (post determination of pigeon-hood), or shooting it and eating it in a pie, or finding another board to play on with another player (pigeons sometimes follow you though).
People are free to diddle the pigeon’s cloaca all they want if it is a consenting pigeon of marriageable age and the mood takes them. There are certain pigeons I am perfectly happy not to diddle. Let a thousand flowers bloom. And please, for the love of all that is pigeon, abandon concerns about the pigeon’s feelings as it is shooed and instead use that energy to clean the fucking guano off this chess board.
Louis
@Volyova
Please tell me where my comments #39, #42 or Giliels #41 do any of the above. Or is criticizing and pointing out the errors in your comment “taking aim”, “insulting” or “dismissing”?
And really, if you want to post on this subject, which has literally gotten mor than 4000 comments on the famous “grenade”-threat alone (and is a highly traumatising subject for many here), and don’t see the need to educate yourself before posting your gem of insight “Hey, drunk people are responsible for their actions”, totally ignoring all that has been said on the subject before, then it is you who is impolite as hell (even if you don’t use swear words). It’s like barging in on an evolution thread and saying “Hey, why are there still monkeys?”
you have a point. the internet is a big place, I tend not to run into the worst of it in meatspace, but you’re probably right that if I did, I’d be a bit more… vocal.. about it.
otoh, if I ran into as many schmucks in meatspace as I do on the internet, I can’t imagine I’d ever leave the house!
Ichthyic,
I am fortunate enough to related to many many charming homophobes, transphobes, misogynists, racists etc and frequently am charmed by their company and the company of the similarly minded friends.
It helps keep me young.
I think.
Maybe.
Drinking heavily makes you younger, right?
Louis
I haven’t finished reading the thread yet, so someone may already have pointed this out.
Isn’t Penn Gillette claiming that he has to be able to use the slur “c*nt” so that his little girl can read Ulysses one day kinda like claiming that he’d have to use “n*gger” if he wants her to be able to read Tom Sawyer?
If it makes little girls stronger to hear sexist slurs, does he think it makes black, LGBTQ and other minority children stronger to hear slurs that denigrate them tossed around?
If he doesn’t use sexist slurs around his daughter, then how is him using them helping her to be a strong, literate woman?
In either case, he’s full of shit.
Here’s the deal, Penn is not the first parent to have to decide how to introduce his children to problematic material or language. His excuse that he HAS to use sexist slurs for the sake of his daughter is ridiculous and he should be ashamed for trying to pull that one over on people.
I like Bob Dylan. I listened to him so much years ago that in second grade my daughter’s favorite song was Subterranean Homesick Blues and she knew most of the words. So how did I handle the use of the N word in the lyrics to Hurricane? I didn’t start peppering my speech with it. Instead, I explained it. I told my daughter about the word, about racism and it’s history and I told her that we never, ever, ever use that word and we speak up when other people do. That process has been repeated many times over the course of raising kids. Teaching kids to understand bigotry and how to navigate the world and appreciate problematic songs, films, TV, games, comics, literature etc without being a bigot or blind to bigotry isn’t that hard. It certainly isn’t done by behaving like a bigoted ass and them claiming you’re doing it for your kids.
I’ve never liked the “Won’t someone think of the children!” excuse, but using it to excuse misogynist slurs is probably the worst, most dishonest use of that excuse I have ever seen.
The article is no longer cut off, by the way.
How long does an author spend writing a piece like this? IOW, when would he have started contacting people for interviews/quotes/background info? Is there any reason to infer a causal connection between this article being written and JREF dumping DJ, or vice versa?
Jackie, thank you for that well put statement. [#249]
#169 – PZ Myers
“I also notice that Shermer’s Skepticblog is shutting down… ”
No it’s relaunching.
With Barbara Dresher, Loxton, Prothero and their friends.
Has anyone asked if Skeptic’s contributors and podcasts are doing anything about this? Skepticality was a friend of Alison Smith and Dr Gay, for example.
I also noticed the garbage characters at the end of the BF post. Mine did not clear up until last night.
So your indictment of Michael Shermer is based on Mark Oppenheimer’s recollection of James Randi’s recollection of generalizations made by people who report to him about Shermer’s behavior. PZ, your acceptance of poor evidence as the basis for your conclusions astounds me.
Since when was first party testament not excellent evidence? Oh, right, when it comes from a woman!
evid3nc3:
You’re not really in a position to lecture anyone about standards of evidence: http://freethoughtblogs.com/entequilaesverdad/2014/09/13/the-shermer-allegations-some-considerations-for-those-to-whom-this-is-a-nasty-shock/
Shorter evid3nc3: bitches and journos lie.
*was*
evid3nc3:
Yes, because testimony from the victim herself, as well as several other women who have been sexually harassed by him, wasn’t in the article at all.
Fuck off, slymewad.
evid3nc3:
Are you new to the internet? New to this particular sphere of the ‘net? Because that’s about the only valid excuse you might have for that mess you call a comment.
The answer would be NO. The indictment is based on testimony. FFS, if you are utterly unaware of the history here, have the grace to ask what something is all about before you decide to play superior skeptic. Here’s a bit of reading for you:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2013/08/12/sexual-harassment-accusations-in-the-skeptical-and-secular-communities-a-timeline-of-major-events/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/08/what-do-you-do-when-someone-pulls-the-pin-and-hands-you-a-grenade/comment-page-1/#comments Note: there are nine pages of comments. If you claim to have read them all in a short space of time, well, no one will believe you.
Now, please go read, and think before you decide to comment again.
Anteprepro:
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen the nym evid3nc3 here before, so yeah, chances are good that fuck off is the appropriate stance.
evid3nc3 @255:
If you could wipe the misogyny from your eyes, you might find yourself listening to and believing the words of the woman Shermer raped. You know, Allison Smith?
Instead, you want to take a trip down the not so pleasant memory lane of the grenade thread and not even address the woman who was raped, as if she’s not a person.
As anteprepro said, fuck the fuck off.
A defender of a rapist completely ignores the existence of his victims. Quelle surprise.
Help… where is the “grenade” thread?
Found it…
Evid3nc3:
It astounds you so much that you believe it, even though there is immense evidence that PZ did no such thing. Your acceptance — nay, enthusiastic invention — of poor evidence as the basis for your conclusions astounds me not a whit.
And your ‘nym is Evidence. That reminds me of the trope that certain groups always pick ‘nyms that are hilariously inappropriate.
Hilariously:
On Monday, I tried to post the following to http://freethoughtblogs.com/entequilaesverdad/2014/09/15/so-much-wrong-james-randis-rape-culture-remarks/
.
The comnent has been waiting on moderation, but I am beyond out of patience with Michael Shermer and DJ Grothe.
.
Here is my reply to the understandable anger at Randi:
.
Michael Shermer is a liar and sexual predator. He lied to Randi.
.
I’m a long time reader but this is my first post.
.
I believe Alison. She’s my friend. She is telling the truth. I have no doubt that she is telling the truth.
.
Everyone here has generally been excellent at reading between the lines and catching the lies in the accounts of the various sleaze bags who have been discussed since elevatorgate.
.
I must dissent about Randi, though. I might be wrong, but I don’t think he was excusing Shermer taking advantage of women.
I don’t think he knew.
I think he was abstaining on judging Shermer for cheating on his wife.
.
Look at how different the story Shermer told Randi is from the one he told other people. It seems that the story presented to Randi was that two adults were both drunk (he told others he was sober), and that they had had a consensual one night stand. Shermer is a predator. I think he knew that this was precisely the strategy he needed to discourage a teetotaler from asking any more questions.
.
I think (and I might be wrong) that this is the bad boy behavior to which Randi was referring: Getting drunk and cheating on his wife, not raping a young woman.
.
If presented with the story Shermer told him, I think it would have seemed wildly inappropriate to Randi to ask a young woman (who was also his employee) about her sex life. I think Shermer knew this and used it to his advantage.
.
Alison did not tell Randi. At some point she told one or more people on the board, but I think that board has made “keeping Randi out of all loops” business as usual.
.
I truly do not think Randi knew. I do not think he spends time on the Internet. I think DJ actually took his computer away from him at one point.
.
I also have reason to believe (though no one has any reason to believe me and I understand that) that Randi never liked DJ, may have actively disliked him for years, did not have hiring or firing power after August of 2008, and would have preferred just about anyone over DJ.
.
He may know by now, and the way DJ was fired without even a bit of boilerplate “we thank him for his time and wish him the best” is potentially an indication that he did not know what had been going on, learned something, and became furious.
.
It is possible that following up on this article was the line in the sand.
.
Again, I might be wrong, but I truly believe that if Randi had known what Shermer did to Alison, he would have told him to go to hell years ago.
.
Again, this is my first post. You have no reason to believe me. I understand that.
.
Thank you and everyone at FtB for standing up for women.
Thank you for standing up for Alison.
Thank you for standing up for Karen.
And thank you for standing up to Richard Dawkins.
.
(end of post one; begin post two)
.
I also must add (and I truly know no one has any reason to believe me) that over the past few years I told a few friends who had previouy worked at the JREF (and Penn Jillette) that I believed the way Randi was being mistreated and misled by both DJ and the Board of Directors was, in my opinion, bordering on Elder Abuse. All took my concerns seriously. Penn even gave me his direct contact information to let him know if I saw anything that could be brought to the proper authorities. He did not tell me to contact The Rio and leave a message; he told me how to contact him directly. I think Penn felt something was off about DJ, but he did not know what was wrong and did not have any actionable proof.
.
It is true that Randi is famous for being someone who cannot be fooled, and he is a better than average judge of character (I believe he actively disliked DJ for years and DJ was reported to have said appallingly disrespectful things about Randi behind closed doors), but this reputation of being unable to be fooled is neither fair nor accurate. It also contradicts what Randi has always said: “Anyone can be fooled.”
.
Randi is someone who cannot be fooled by psychopaths passing off magic tricks as supernatural powers. Randi is not a “Truth Wizard” as defined by Paul Ekman and the late Maureen O’Sullivan. Even if he were, accuracy at detecting lies drops dramatically for everyone when they are emotionally invested in the people involved. In a scenario like this he is likely no better than average (read: chance) at detecting lies versus truth in day to day life.
.
Michael Shermer is a sexual predator with a degree in psychology, but I do not believe he is a psychopath. His lies to Randi did not involve magic tricks. Randi would be no better equipped than anyone else to tell if the story was true or not. I believe Randi heard rumors that Shermer had cheated on his wife again. I believe he asked Shermer if it was true. I believe that Shermer, being a long-time sexual predator, likely had a plausible sob story about an invented alcohol addiction ready to go, told him the one night stand was consensual, and told Randi he would seek help. I believe Randi’s conditional reply was just that: conditional. I believe he took Shermer at his word but was disappointed in him and warned him if it happened again he’d be out. I do not believe Randi had any reason to suspect Alison had been assaulted. Shermer’s story (again please note how different it is from his other accounts of the evening) was both plausible and designed to disincline Randi from asking any further questions. Asking Alison about her sex life would have been unacceptable (truly, can you imagine a man in his 80s calling a female employee to ask her about her sex life? It would be outrageous) and potentially very damaging to her especially if the only other potential dissenting witness was possibly Alison’s boyfriend (her friend that she called from the elevator who was also the recipient of the after-TAM email). Shermer is a manipulative sexual predator. Manipulative sexual predators know how to manipulate people.
.
July, August, and September of 2008 were chaotic at the JREF. Randi had had a cancer scare and still appeared very frail (this was after his stroke and heart attack). He knew Christopher Hitchens was dying and was heartbroken about it. Phil was taking over. Not long after there was a completely unrelated attack on people close to Randi. Alison did not tell Randi what happened. Perhaps she did not want to add to his stress. Shermer, having no such ability to care about anything but his own status, seems to have used this to his advantage. I believe he told Randi a plausible lie, promised it wouldn’t happen again, and framed his story in such a way as to make it seem that Randi would be disrespecting or even hurting Alison by investigating further. After Phil left, DJ used the culture of secrecy to his advantage and did not let Randi know what was really going on at TAM.
.
I hope someone who is comfortable talking to Randi about this (I am not) picks up the telephone and tells him the truth about what has happened. Otherwise, I only know that something happened after TAM that allowed Randi to have DJ removed once and for all. It could truly be any number of things; perhaps he learned something that made him furious or it could have simply been that adding Adam Savage to the board tipped the votes in Randi’s favor for the first time in years. I only know that Randi wanted DJ gone for years and his assurances to former employees (well documented here at FtB) that DJ would soon be fired demonstrates this. I do not know what Randi knows or when he learned it.
.
Michael Shermer is a sexual predator.
Richard Dawkins is mind-blind and smug.
I believe Randi has been intentionally kept in the dark.
But… Randi said that he knew that Shermer had been a ‘bad boy’. And that he’d heard, though not directly from Shermer of course, that he had ‘misbehaved with women’. But hearing that his golden boy had ‘misbehaved with women’ wasn’t enough to have a serious sit down and say something like “one more tale of misbehaviour and you are out.”