Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Last Dregs of ElevatorGate Coffee

Looks like this post is part 4 of the Dublin elevator affair (or non-affair, that is). For my first 3 articles about ElevatorGate, see Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

It seems that there's a little more left in the coffeepot. It's getting kind of stale, but let's not let it go to waste, shall we? I'm going to put some more links and embedded videos below. I might be missing a few though, since I didn't think I'd be writing a part 4 and didn't bookmark everything consistently. Also, I left a few out intentionally in cases where, even though I otherwise agreed with their opinions, I disagreed too much with what they thought of Dawkins' comment. I still feel strongly about that comment (in favour of it), including the sarcastic tone he wrote it in, so what can I say? I don't want to link to anything that is, in my opinion, overly critical of him for it.

First though, before the links and videos, let me tell you about something - something very funny and ironic considering all the demonizing that's been done of Dawkins during this whole thing.

It's come out now, that BEFORE ELEVATORGATE, Richard Dawkins, arranged for his Foundation for Reason and Science, to pay for the childcare costs at all future TAM conferences. I found out about this today from ERV's article "Dawkins coup de grĂ¢ce in Vegas". Now logically, since it's mostly women who take on child care responsibilities, providing free childcare might very well increase the attendance of women at atheist/skeptic events. It makes sense, plus it's a nice thing to do for attendees with children regardless of the attendee's gender.

So, here we have Dawkins doing something that will likely encourage female attendance. On the other hand, Rebecca Watson seems to think women are really being scared away because they might get sexist hate mail from misogynist atheists. Watson's conclusions about why there are less women at events than men have no real basis in much beyond some hate mail she's received from atheist men, and she says it happens when she talks about feminist issues. This is NOT necessarily representative of what happens to women in the atheist community. Perhaps it's representative of angry responses to discussions about feminist ideology itself, but not necessarily atheist discussions, not even ones where theocratic sexism is discussed. My guess is that the feminist topics she's referring to, are ones with talk of vague thought-crimes like 'sexualization', 'objectification', and other stuff which is NOT connected to atheism, not even the subtopics of theocratic laws/customs that are specifically against women . In my opinion, sexism is not running rampant in, or intrinsic to, the atheist community.

Personally, and yes, I'm adding my own 2 cents' worth of anecdotes here now too, I've found a huge amount LESS sexist behaviour/attitudes in the atheist communities than anywhere else I've seen (both on- and off-line). With equal rights and fairness at its core, no matter what your discriminated-against group is, humanism is a huge part of the atheist community and tends to be on your side by default. Not only that, but the theocracies that atheism stands up to, are the ones most responsible for the remaining sexism towards women in our world currently. Islam-based laws/cultures are the worst of those, as we all know, but even in the almost-secular 'western' countries, the remaining laws/culture that harm women are the christianity-based ones, especially where reproductive rights are concerned.

Makes me wonder who's doing more to improve the state of women in the world? Is it the atheist community (who do things like help out with the extra burden women often have in child care responsibilities, and who fight against the horrible regimes that mutilate, rape, kill, and enslave women as a matter of routine), or is it the feminist community (who complain about things like how oppressive those 'sexualizing' thoughts that men allegedly have even though they've accepted our "no's" as "no's" politely with no fuss)?

Anyways, here are those further links and videos for you.

IntegralMath/Justicar has written a number of further articles on it, but there are too many for me to link here, so you'll just have to go to his blog, and keep clicking "older posts" at the bottom until you've seen them all. Maybe I'd have had the energy to do it if I had had a coffee just before writing this post. :)

UnsolicitedComment wrote "The Reason I Feel Compelled to Comment (the Elevatroversy)"

At Radon's Blog, "A guy and a girl gets into an elevator.."

In Living Color has an update to their original article: "Elevator Guy Hits the Wires (updated)"

At Grey Lining, "The Watson Circus and Reflections On The Stanford Prison Experiment"

JesusFetusFajitaFishsticks gives us "A note to Miss Andry"

The Perplexed Observer writes about "Love In An Elevator With Richard Dawkins"

At Zenbuffy, there is "Much ado about…wait, what?"

David Styles writes, "An atheist feminist walks into a bar in Dublin..."

(If you want to go to the description/comment pages of the videos below, click their titles)

YES..."Elevatorgate" oh no's! by jakluk4


Elevators are so FUCKING awkward... by BobChaos23
This one has embedding disabled, so click here instead.

Things Elevator Guy DIDN'T Say by Al1981X


Elevatorgate - RK Watson is offered coffee by omgatheism


Going Doooown by AtheistAussie


Skepchick almost viciously sexually attacked in a elevator by a Black man.( Rebecca Watson ) by AmetReloads (my favourite YouTube troll who sometimes makes ones I like!)


Elevatorgate: Pervasive Misogyny and Rape Threats in Response to Feminism by valeriereified


Elevatorgate, the naked truth by chthonios

27 comments:

  1. I just wanted to post to let you know that I'm drinking coffee while reading this. I'm sorry if this creeps anyone out.

    I haven't posted a blog article all day; I'm far too deep into following the threads involving PZ Myers' cowardly deceptions, and his coterie of people who've descended on ERV's blog to tell her how stupid she is. And how she's hurting women by advocating the repugnant idea that perhaps, just maybe, it's prudent to "let" individual women do their own thinking without labeling them gender traitors and all the rest.

    PZ's having none of that. Do as your told, woman. Fetch my goddamned sandwich NOW!

    He decided to call me out by name, and then delineated a long list of all of my favorable attributes: liar, misogynist, rape-apologist, scumbag, other stuff I can't remember (I try not to take flattering comments to heart lest I get a big ego).

    So, I asked him if he'd be so kind of point out a single lie. Or even just find two of my statements anywhere that are mutually exclusive and post them. He must still be doing research (or he's full of hot air).

    He then wrote this long strawman, which I addressed point by point, sentence by sentence with the corresponding sentences of what I actually wrote, and asked him why he's so misrepresenting what I actually said

    Also, I gave him a lesson in grammar, set and probability theory and logic.

    After that, for some inexplicable reason, he seems to have forgotten how to type to me. But he did note vaguely that he has personal information on "some" people in the conversation.

    But I guess he didn't really mean what he said in his "name names" post. Say, didn't a certain senator from a while back have a list of names too? Hrm. Curious.

    Yes, when you take a note out of Joe McCarthy's playbook, you're really struggling for help.

    Never did get back to me with that information he implied he had. *sniffle*

    I'll do a write up about it tomorrow after I sit down and see how it's played out on other parts of the interwebz (of which I'm one of the most vile users ever. I rank higher than child pornstars!)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Holy shit, where'd he do that, on ERV's post or one of his own? When someone gets to the point where they threaten that they 'have personal info' on people, not only is that a really scummy move, but he's also forfeited the argument. It's like going "Oh yeah? Well, well... if you don't stop saying things I can't argue against, I'm gonna hit you".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, just saw yours and PZ's comments at ERV's post. PZ is convinced that that was harassment????

    No, harassment is when the 'no' is not accepted. You can even call it harassment if the offer is made in an angry or insulting way as well. But neither of those things happened to Watson.

    Someone buy PZ a good dictionary, please. :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just thinking more on that. I'm really kind of shocked that PZ is pulling a threat of revealing personal information about people if they don't stop disagreeing with him. Or at least, that's what it looks like he's doing there. Any idea who it is that he's saying that to? Who it is he's threatening? That's a pretty shitty thing to do, throwing out threats like that. I think he's losing it.

    Or, should I be optimistic and wonder if he's got some angry inner turmoil going on, afterwhich he'll finally accept that he should go with facts/truth about ACTUAL harm instead of emotions like being offended that other people might be having sexual thoughts (despite that they do no harm with it)?

    Yeah, what am I saying? I doubt that's going to happen, unfortunately. If only he'd put half those skills he has, those of looking into the veracity and methodology of studies/research, towards the various claims that float around the feminisphere, at least maybe his nutty fangirls will start using REAL numbers, REAL medicine instead of non-recognized made-up ailments like 'porn addiction', and maybe he could even gently guide them towards using logical progressions in getting to their various conclusions. Maybe they'd see the that not every cigar is a penis out to rape them. Maybe they'd stop being so fucking scared all the time like stereotype women standing on a stool saying "EEEK! There's a mouse (in the elevator with me)".

    But that would require that PZ himself was not wilfully believing all the feminist hype on nothing more than faith, anecdotes and emotional appeals.

    Arggh. PZ is extra frustrating, because he has so much potential to be logical, shown in many of his other writings where he pwns bad science and bullshit studies. Sad actually.

    PZ, if you're reading this, leave the radfem cult. Even if all the pats of approval make you feel warm and fuzzy. Religions do that to some people too, you know. Bring the others out of it too, maybe. Keep the good stuff (your friends, reality-based feminism) while dumping the bad stuff (overboard irrational ideology).

    Leave the cult, PZ. We have cookies, I mean coffee. :D

    ReplyDelete
  5. To clarify my comment above, by "reality-based feminism", I mean equity feminism. And by "overboard irrational ideology", I mean gender feminism. Wiki has articles on both types of feminism, if interested.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's all rad feminism, or "gender" feminism. There's no "reality-based" feminism.

    The distinction was attempted by a few women who used to be feminists. They liked to think of themselves as dissidents within the movement but the movement kicked them out. So-called moderate feminists kicked THEM out but refuse to say the most over the top man hating gendercidal nut cases are not feminists.

    What the hell would a so-called reality-based feminism even do? All the real equality issues on gender are for men's rights. Where are all these so-called equity feminists? Unless they are actively crtiicising feminism's dogma I don't see them at all, and if that's all they do then why not come out of the closet and admit they are anti-feminist --- and that that is a GOOD thing?

    ReplyDelete
  7. By reality based, I mean tackling REAL issues. And even though in the 'west' we have a mix of remaining shitty things to fix for both men's and women's side of things, the biggest problem for women these days is in theocracies where LAWS make them slaves.

    I'm talking of course about countries where there are no LEGAL rights and they are literally slaves. They go through the kind of horrible shit that makes all our western problems so fucking petty you wouldn't believe it.

    You said: "All the real equality issues on gender are for men's rights"
    No. in the west, there are a mix of issues for BOTH sexes, but over in muslim countries especially, there is a gender apartheid for females that's worse than South Africa had for blacks. In fact it's full blown slavery. No comparison in that sense. I am not talking about western countries where at least the laws have everyone's basic rights there and only some changes or revising might be needed for even better fairness.

    And as for the west, well, the xtians are trying to fuck up women's rights (and many of men's too), just not as bad or as widespread as the muslim countries currently do it.

    The sexes would get along so much better if religions didn't keep coming in and trying to push their likes and dislikes on everyone else, making them laws.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That's just not true at all. There's nothing in the West to fight for for women. There's zero substantial issues not merely hardly any. The issues are all to try and push back against feminism and create genuine equality by addressing the discrimination against men.

    As for other countries you are also wrong about them, but you know so little about other countries that you are simply prepared to believe bullshit from the radical feminists when the scene of the story is in some foreign country where you don't personally know any better. Be skeptical. Why would they lie about the US and not about everywhere else too?

    What country on planet earth gives women "zero rights" as you say? None. In what country on the entire planet are women "literally slaves" as you say? None. And that's true even throughout history (except where men were similarly slaves of course, or where men were executed instead of being enslaved).

    Some tin-pot third world country treats a woman badly and its splashed across Western papers the next day. When they do something ten times as bad to a man its simply not news. Here's an example:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men

    The Taliban for example treated men much worse than they treated women. Are you surprised to hear that? Consider your sources of news. Do they want to tell you about women suffering or men suffering? When the empire wants to invade another country will they win sympathy by stories about women victims or men? Do they make the US look better by telling you horror stories about men or about women?

    Your view of the world is slanted by seeing it entirely through a feminized all-women-are-victims all-men-are-rapists lens. Take that lens away and see straight. What do you REALLY know about these foreign countries?

    And what "women's issue" do you think still exists in the West anyway?

    I am intrigued about you because I heard that you managed to pull out of the feminist cult. Before I ask you about that I'd like to find out to what extent it is actually true.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Some "slavery" (forced labor) in the US -- hint: its almost all male victims.

    http://www.alternet.org/world/151732/21st-century_slaves%3A_how_corporations_exploit_prison_labor/

    ReplyDelete
  10. Don't pull that shit of saying there are only inequalities for men in the west. There are some residual inequalities for BOTH sexes.

    As for countries with slavery laws, in theocratically run muslim countries (where the religion is the LAW with no secular protections for people of other religions & non-religions), I think you know full well that when you are forced to 'marry' someone, and then must by law live with, have sex with, and do household labour and childcare for, that is: BOTH SEXUAL AND LABOUR SLAVERY. And that's for the entire female population of those countries. No exceptions.

    I'm not going to get into the western issues with you, other than to say there are a number remaining issues for BOTH sexes.

    You've jumped to the "all-women-are-victims all-men-are-rapists" conclusion about me without knowing the first thing about me. I believe in neither and speak out against both mindsets.

    That's probably because you're the radical MRA counterpart to the radical feminists. Both sides go overboard in seeing enemies everywhere, and both sides make wild claims about who's got it worse in the western world. I'm kind of surprised though, that you are also in denial regarding the very factual, and verifiable theocratic laws regarding women in the Middle East.

    I get along with most MRAs I interact with, even some of the radical ones, agreeing on some but not all things, but your denial of muslim women having it worse than muslim men is beyond finding any common agreements on. Don't know what else to tell you, my friend.

    I'd give you links to my articles and videos that talk about when and why I left feminism, and other shit to disprove your assumptions you've made of me, and yet more to disprove some of your claims (not all though, for instance the prison industry is a very valid fact to add into things), but I really can't be bothered, and I don't get much sense that I'm going to convince you anyways, so I'm not going to try to hard, eh? :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. OK, you didn't offend me with anything you said. I sense I need to say that....? I didn't make any assumptions about you -- this is your blog, OK? I got your opinion from reading a lot of your stuff before I posted. Isn't that what people do? Well it's what *I* do. I even mentioned I was aware of your claims to be an ex-radical femme.

    Now you have made assumptions about *me*. And I am fine with that. What else are you going to do? However as it happens your guesses were largely wrong. Happens a lot because apparently I have a radically unique take on gender which is that I am in favour of equality and I am a left winger, and I recognise that feminists are not in favour of equality.

    I am not in the MRA. I don't even read their stuff though I used to about ten years ago. I guess they tend to like my stuff, at least on gender, though many tend to be rightwing. I've been researching and discussing gender issues on-line for about twenty years, although not so much the last ten.

    So much for the personal stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You are dismissive of people who disagree with you on gender. That is not a good sign to me. If someone disagrees with me I don't dismiss that opinion as "shit" right off. Especially when in the same number of words I could easily refute what they were saying (this is the claim you are making to me) by simply giving examples of what I mean by women's issues. That sort of response enlarges the conversation whereas dismissing the other guy with "don't pull that shit" contracts it.

    See, the people you call "radical feminists" would leap to the reaction you had, wouldn't they? They would never consider they might have something to learn from someone else. My question here is are you like them?

    I believe that if you hold an opinion you ought to be able to explain it. You ought to be able to question it. Do you agree? Because so far you are not coming across that way. You kinda come across as saying "Oh I know what the truth is and if you don't agree then you are an idiot and that's all there is to it so there"

    Do you know a lot about muslim countries? have you ever been to one? Do you know any muslims? have you read the Koran? I am getting the impression that the answer to these questions is "no". At the same time you act as if you were an expert. This is troubling to me.

    It is not good to have a dogmatic opinion in the absence of facts. Perhaps you think my position is the dogmatic one here? I'm not saying I know for a fact women are not worse off in foreign countries. What I am saying is that you don't know for a fact that they are. I'm saying we are both ignorant, but one of us has made unverified assumptions.

    Making a judgment on something as subtle as which gender has it worst in a society is really hard. It involves a lot of societal-specific detailed questions which I think would be hard for an outsider to correctly balance. it's hard enough to reach a conclusion about the society we do know a lot about -- our own.

    But YOU think you know all about eg Saudi Arabia because you read a feminist article going on about some woman being whipped for adultery or something. Or all about the Taliban because you read a feminist article about women not being allowed out of the house unaccompanied.

    The MRA's don't question these things either, because they are in the same boat as you. They got fed this line and they just believed it without question. I question things. I research the background. I can't hope to understand any number of foreign cultures but I can at least dig a little. It turns out that if you do that the "evidence" for the position you hold collapses almost immediately.

    But you have never done that I think.

    Now do you want to continue this or shall we just leave it at you dogmatically saying I'm full of shit on the basis of not agreeing 100% with your prejudices? I warn you now: I don't go easy on people.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wow, that's a shitload of both new and continued assumptions about me and the world in general. That's also an avoidance of many things I brought up.

    As for your last paragraph, which, no surprise, contains an incorrect paraphrase of anything I've written, I'll remind you that I concluded in my previous comment that I can't be too bothered with arguing with you much further. There are too many signs that you are already misconstruing me, believe in wacky stuff as your starting assumptions, and someone who jumps to conclusions.

    I'm not worried about you 'not going easy on me. I'm not sure what it is you think I fear. However, I AM worried that you won't be able to keep up! :D Also, that you'll continue to not be able to comprehend what I'm ACTUALLY saying, and not be able to logically counter any points I bring up, and not back up anything you present as facts, etc.

    I've met too many like you with the same warning signs of a total waste of a conversation about to happen. Usually they are radfems or xtians though.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So I'll take that as a "no" then.

    ReplyDelete
  15. That's right. Hey, at least you're one of the good guys since accept a no as a no, even though the discussion didn't go as hoped. Gotta give you that. :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Never propositioned a woman in lift but I did once miss my stop on a train while, not having sexual relations with a woman, as Mr. Clinton would say. Afterwards there was a moment of concern over spillage but she planted her tongue in my gob, the distinct odour of, the catch of the day, ending any concern in that regard. That was all a long time ago, do younger folk still get up to stuff like that with strangers or is it all boring now?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I haven't been one of the younger folk for a while now, but I suspect they do occasionally do such things. Or variations thereof anyways. :D

    ReplyDelete
  18. What an offensive joke. You don't get to label men as "good" or "bad" according to how they fit in with your desires. I'm not ruled by you because of your gender. You don't get to make some predator-like slur about me because I'm posting on a comment thread either.

    I don't think you moved as far from the rad femmes as you'd like to think. Still better than nothing of course.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @DavidByron Get a sense of humour, for fuck's sake. I'm not surprised, in afterthought, that you are offended though. You came here prepared to be upset at any disagreement to your claim that men have it worse everywhere in the world.

    I'm not a radfem, and I don't even label myself any type of feminist, but I'm not anti-woman either, although you seem to be hoping I am. Not anti-woman and not anti-man. I'm against sexism regardless of which sex is being picked on.

    Don't come here spouting bullshit that men have it worse in the middle east, and also, don't expect me to tiptoe around your delicate little offended feelings. If you need careful tone, coddling and people to walk on ice around you, try elsewhere. I don't do that shit.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sweet Jesus, David Byron, what an arse! That's what happens to you when you embrace sexual repression and fundamentalist doctrine. Being that uptight would have it's advantages though, it probably precludes the chance of needing to wait 3 hours for the milk train because you missed your stop. Somebody please roll him a spliff, give him a ticket to Thailand or a greek island if that's inclination, before he bursts a blood vessel.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Is he a fundie? That might explain a few things! :D

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bwahahaha! Vicodin has inspired me!

    http://integralmath.blogspot.com/2011/07/and-now-for-some-real-hard-science.html

    ReplyDelete
  23. Justicar, You're inspired even without Vicodin! :)

    Leave the cult, PZ. Not only do we have cookies and coffee, but now we have Vicodin too.

    I joke. I think he's too emotionally caught up in it to have any moments of realization any time soon. And it's fucking sad too, since it's in huge contrast to how logically and realistically I've seen him respond to other emotional-based ideologies, from religion to medical woo.

    Now that I finally see just how deeply radfem he is to the point of abandoning reason and objectivity, I'm reminded of a post PZ did sometime last year, called "Disillusionment" (I think) with George B Shaw saying some things that made him plummet in PZ's estimation of him. It might as well be PZ in that video. He's cancelling out all of his own previous good shit with his fundie-feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  24. You didn't offend me. I'm perfectly used to it. I pointed out your "joke" was sexist. If you were actually against sexism then you'd have appreciated being told that. Now why don't you run along like a good little girl?

    You are the one coming off as over emotional and taking offense at stuff that you have no legitimate reason to take offense at -- again, typical feminist behaviour. Why do you take offense at someone offering to educate you? That's irrational.

    I will admit that my own research suggest that if you no longer label yourself as "feminist" that is a highly significant step out of the cult. Congratulations (sincerely). I think that what you've managed to do is very rare. You might be interesting to talk to longer, but that seems impossible because of your other hang ups.

    Namely: you are very closed to being corrected on your "facts" and perspectives that you developed as a "radical" feminist. Perhaps this is just because of how widespread these notions have become. Also you seem oddly combative and take things personally.

    Why would you think I was a fundie when I already said I was on the far left? I am an atheist. I already addressed your "guesses" about me. You know you could just ASK me. I also already said you didn't offend me.

    You can see the error in those you have left behind but please don't think that's all you have to do. From the perspective of someone further to the left again, you look a lot like I imagine PZ looks to you. These tribalist tendencies in people need to be challenged again and again and I'd do that for you.

    You would benefit from talking to me, but at the same time precisely because you would benefit, you cannot do it. That also describes PZ's relationship towards you I think.

    Once again (third time) you do not offend me.

    ReplyDelete
  25. DavidByron wrote: "You didn't offend me."
    Except that I did. You claimed the joke was offensive. Let me know when you make up your mind.

    "I pointed out your "joke" was sexist. If you were actually against sexism then you'd have appreciated being told that. Now why don't you run along like a good little girl?"
    Um, hostility and assumptions much, buddy? WTF? Now you're assuming that I must be against making mild sex jokes and consider them ALL demeaning and misogynistic even when they're not, like radfems tend to cry about. What's with this shit where you keep trying to tell me what I should or shouldn't be doing? Is there any medication you forgot to take today?

    "Why do you take offense at someone offering to educate you?"
    I wouldn't. You are assuming here that your comments were educating in some manner. They only taught me that you are totally out to lunch.

    You seem to want to engage me in deeper conversation, and you also think I have something vague more-to-do (with your help!). Give that expectation up. Totally. I've already written you off as some mentally ill variety of brick wall. I am not going to consider whatever the fuck path or goal you're hoping me to take. I mean, are you fucking insane??? :D

    So, whatever grandiose plan you had of mentoring me, and no matter what kind of psychotic parallels you're seeing in however it is you think I view PZ, forget it. You're a fucking nutter of the type who has built a complex little storyline to their delusions, and I'm not even going to TRY to follow along.

    I'm not touching your insane little hopes 'n plans with a ten foot pole, you fucking weirdo. Now go away and find some lost soul who's actually WANTS a mentor (and an insane one at that!). Buh bye. :D

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hey, props for a great take on this infuriating but ultimately rather stupid event.

    Any idea what's happened to Atheism+ nowadays? Still doing that "disagree with us and we ban u!!!" mentality?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I wonder if there is anyone left at A+. Probably just mods as they've likely banned everyone else. :)

      Delete