Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Utter Malicious Nonsense

The femtheist community has begun a particularly nasty type of evidence-less witch hunt. It was begun by Stephanie Zvan and Jen McCreight writing about the Women in Secularism conference that just occurred this past weekend.

They claim to have been warned by unnamed people that certain male speakers, as McCreight puts it,
"often make unwanted and aggressive sexual advances toward young pretty women and that I should not be alone with them."

Now, she and some of the other femtheists, want to create a list. A collection of anecdotal harassment/assault claims, naming privately, the speakers who they are accusing. The event organizers will be asked not to invite them, for the sake of women's safety.

The speakers would have no opportunity to explain/defend themselves, and they wouldn't even know they're on a list. They'd simply stop being asked to speak. The femtheists want to surreptitiously take away these men's speaking income without having to present any evidence for their claims of why they shouldn't be invited to speak.

This is insane. Stephanie Zvan is saying, without any actual names, that many of the men who the femtheists have already publicly named for doing various supposedly sexist things, are the same ones doing even worse bad things behind the scenes at conferences. She tells us what subset of the community the allegedly offending men are from:
"Let me let you in on a little secret, though. When I have heard speaker names attached to this, there have been no surprises. If you pay attention to the people who are named and shamed for public behavior, it isn't hard to deduce that many (though not all) would have private behavior that was as bad or worse."
But she doesn't name names or specify what behaviours. We are to believe it all, and accept as a good thing, that they will be named and banned behind the scenes, without evidence or trial.

And here's her method of collecting 'evidence'. She actually thinks she's being logical here.
"If you're in a position to do so, scream it to the rafters. If you're not, try to add your story to the ones traded behind the scenes. More stories = more credibility = more weight."
'Anecdata' passed along in some whispered game of Telephone (aka Chinese Whispers). That looks real good on women, Zvan. Makes us look like illogical, paranoid, crybaby accusers.

If you have some specific bad behaviour to accuse any specific persons of, spit it out or shut up. This kind of behaviour is whine and tattle without even a tale to tell. Utter malicious nonsense.

Zvan clarifies in the comments, with an absolutely ridiculous example of what she sees as bad, sexist behaviour:
"See something happening where a woman looks like she might want to get away from a public figure? Now is a great time to ask said public figure a question, tell them you've read their book, thank them for something else they've done, and just generally monopolize their attention for a minute. You may feel like an ass for invading a speaker's privacy, but someone who has been looking for an opportunity to break away can do so. If she's fine in the conversation, you've kept your intervention to a minimum, and you can apologize to her for the interruption."
I see. If a public figure talks with you, it's an assault most likely. And also, let's remember how weak women are, how unable we are to break away from an unwanted conversation. Zvan, you really do make women look like inferior humans. Way to be feminist!

Why don't femtheists just institutionalize all of us women? We don't seem to have any agency or ability to control/direct our own lives, if we accept Zvan's above example as an actual danger. The femtheist view of women is of infantilized, hyper-vulnerable, hyper-sensitive, fragile people, not adults. Being seen as weak and picked on, makes it all the better for them to cry victim over any spilt or imaginary milk. That's the whole point of it.

And should I ever meet in person, any of the public figures in the atheist community, and if we have a conversation, instead of thinking "oh wow, I just met ___ and had a great little chat", I should instead report him to security and event organizers, as it's most likely an assault.

In Zvan's article, she has an "FAQ", which is a little questions and answers segment that she made up from a conversation in her head. She makes it very clear that none of this is to be questioned. It is NOT to be subject to skepticism. My bold below:
"Q: Do famous atheist speakers really act like assholes to women? A: Yes.
Q: Really?! A: I said, "Yes." I've experienced some of it, in front of witnesses. I've talked to other women who've experienced it personally. I've talked to conference organizers who have strategies for minimizing the damage when they have to invite one of these men to one of their conferences. Also, did you just express "skepticism" over this? It's a completely uncontroversial statement. Unaccetable [sic] gendered behavior exists."
Sure, it's been proven that not everyone in the world is a nice guy, but that doesn't mean that it's unquestioningly true of any particular individuals within the subset of unnamed male speakers she's accusing here. So far, the 'crimes' seem so vague, abstract, and absurd, that of course she won't even name one name or the actual behaviour. She must know on some level that her claims would be laughed at if examined. The closest she comes is hinting that public figures are forcing their fans to talk with them a while. That doesn't even make sense. She's paranoid and malicious. Wanting revenge for perceived wrongs. She even hints at what should or shouldn't cost people their jobs.

Her claim of "Unaccetable [sic] gendered behaviour exists." is not something that anyone disputes, but she's pointing her accusing finger at a category of people (public figures) within a specific community (atheist/skeptic), so I would expect her to at least publicly state what her case is against who.

This hush/hush stuff is not for private safety away from the bad man (whoever he is today), but instead, they know if they show any anonymously authored anecdotes and claim that that is evidence, they'll be laughed at and thought of as idiots. These nasty little backstage gossipers have decided that they are victim, judge, and jury. There are to be no fair trials or means by which the accused have a chance to defend themselves.

They don't want to confront or tell the allegedly offending person that they've done something wrong. That person is assumed to know they've committed a horrible sexism, and likely did it on purpose due to being a sexist man. Often the story is that they are afraid to confront men, and rather than see that as a trait to get over, they act as though overcome with fear that the man might retaliate and endanger her if she dare speak up. This is their excuse as to why the accusers MUST remain anonymous and given an automatic assumption of credibility.

And what's to stop any women from abusing this system with false stories accusing men they are competing with for speaker roles, or who they simply don't like? Nothing. There are no safeguards against false claims or even multiple false claims, much less any opportunity for the accused or others to examine any claims to see if the alleged bad behaviour really is bad or not, and if so, how bad.

As a female, what McCreight, Zvan (and now other femtheists too) have done this time, makes me sick.

I almost can't believe that they've started such a witch hunt. Are they trying to destroy the movement/community? To paraphrase the message I'm getting from this is: "Come, come, women, come to our conferences, but first let me scare you all off, with no evidence but our scary, whispered tales, by alluding to vague ominous sexism done by famous people (who, perhaps, we are just trying to knock down off the ladder so it looks like we've climbed higher)."

They are accepting whispered names and alleged crimes as factual harm, making a big production about it, but claiming they can't say details. I think they know that they have no substance to their claims. Other feminists will believe them outright though, since feminists are frequently duped by emotional appeal fallacies.

If this were even close to a real problem, they’d name names AND behaviours. And then, both sides could fairly defend themselves. It would give hearing to all sides.

This reminds me of the satanist pedophile conspiracy believers in the 80s and 90s, who "recovered" memories (a nightmare about plumbing really means your dad raped you when you were 1 yrs old at a satanic meeting – nonsense like that). A big newsworthy scandal was made from a constructed, unreal problem. Proof (dreams unrelated to sex or incest) was seen everywhere. Many men spent years in prison, and some are still there. I knew a couple of cases personally where the women's families were torn apart and fucked up forever by the daughter claiming satanic incestuous rape happened to her when she was too young to remember (sometimes without the satanic stuff).

When Zvan tells people specifically to NOT be skeptical on this matter, that's a huge clue to do the opposite. Be VERY skeptical. She doesn't want anyone knowing that she's blown things out of proportion to the extreme where she thinks public figures cause harm by FORCING their fans to talk with them. You see, us weak little victim girlies are too scared to break away from a conversation. A conversation that, for some unknown reason, we're suppose to consider a sexual assault or harassment.

They especially do a disservice to any women anywhere who really have been harassed or assaulted, by causing people to assume that ALL claims must be made up after seeing what these malicious, paranoid femtheists have done.

I see this as yet another severe manifestation of our atheist/skeptical community's infection with radical feminism. It's this infection that needs to be removed from the community, not the unnamed men they are accusing.

259 comments:

  1. How to attack every single male in the atheist movement and give yourself a complement at the same time:
    "often make unwanted and aggressive sexual advances toward young pretty women and that I should not be alone with them."

    So McCreight, Watson, Svan, and Benson should be perfectly fine, then.

    So whats the problem?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a feminist and an atheist, this is completely lacking in class. Attacking women on their looks whether or not you agree with them is ad hominem, and neither supports your view as an argument, nor makes you appear as anything but catty.

      And further, you do a disservice to the entire community if this is the image you portray of atheists to others. Shame on you.

      Delete
    2. This just proves atheists can be everyone. I'm an atheist, and I got a good giggle out of ERV's joke. As atheists, we are everyone. There is no one behavioural way to be. No one should be told to mind themselves this way or that, or that they are representing the community so should behave better.

      Not believing in gods doesn't mean that now one has to be a goody-2-shoes, Brady Bunch example to others. There is no requirement of that nature in the definition.

      Also, who are you to tell others whether their image is proper or not? I prefer the sometimes politically incorrect humour of logical people over the self-censored, overly cautious, fainting couch crew that sees themselves as some sort of good example for others, but I wouldn't force people to consider my way good and expect them to change to it.

      Delete
    3. "Also, who are you to tell others whether their image is proper or not? I prefer the sometimes politically incorrect humour of logical people over the self-censored, overly cautious, fainting couch crew that sees themselves as some sort of good example for others..."

      Wow. No, you're right. You'd be the self-centered bitch who sees herself as somebody who can attack another based on her looks rather than the strength of her argument.

      You. Attacking somebody on their looks. Seriously?

      Should I mention your apparent lack of chin? The glasses? The hair? (You know, they have this stuff called "conditioner" now; you might think of looking into it...)

      I mean, I could talk to ERV about that bug-eyed, librarian-bun look that emphasizes her STRONG chin and her... well, let's call it a nose, at this point - I've seen smaller hams, but that's another story, right?

      Oh, I'm sorry. Have I been rude? Talking about people's looks rather than their arguments? Well, I've never considered myself as any kind of "good example," and I wouldn't force people to consider my way good and expect them to change to it.

      Incidentally, you might want to consider bangs. I mean, you could project movies on that forehead right now, and that just isn't good, is it?

      Delete
    4. Hey wow, yes you were indeed rude. Oh my goodness! Let me assess how I fared after that horrible onslaught.

      I'm just fine, thanks. What did you think that would do? Maybe you thought your comment would make me go "golly, that was not nice, and so I better not ever again say words that anyone else doesn't like anymore, golly gosh"?

      Hey, maybe I was supposed to be upset that YOU don't find me attractive? How presumptuous of you, you who is obsessed with looks yet doesn't show their own face.

      Delete
  2. You're right, they have nothing to worry about! Hahahahahhaha :D

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah! Hahaha! On account of they're all ugly!1! amirite?! Ha!Ha!
    So, so funny.
    Hey, what grade are you guys in?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So Sven, to answer your question, about third grade.

      Delete
    2. I see you've noticed the funny joke in the comments here. Yay for you. Now then, did you by any chance read the actual article? What's your opinion on THAT? Hmmmm?

      Delete
    3. Well, Anon, 'The Crucible' is traditionally discussed in at the high school freshman level, so *we* are at least there.

      Tell us when you and FfTB get that far.

      Delete
    4. I usually don't comment on this stuff and especially try to stay away from references to how someone looks, but since you guys brought it up I couldn't resist. You two seriously think its a good idea to make public jokes about how other women look? What was that about people in glass houses?

      As far as the article is concerned, it seems like mostly trash. 85% namecalling and throwing bombs at the other side. This could have been MUCH shorter and still expressed your point. That said, I'm not sure why you say that "Her claim of "Unaccetable [sic] gendered behaviour exists." is not something that anyone disputes" and yet adamantly refuse to believe that ANY of the public speakers in the movement could be involved in this behavior. The only little bit of this that's constuctive in any way is your suggestion that they name names, but the whole point you're attacking is to avoid the public shaming that would ensue, tarnishing someone's reputation regardless of guilt. That's why they want it done privately. Their solution isn't perfect, but thats why they're talking about it. Rather than contribute in a positive way, you've decided to resort to this, then pat each other on the back and laugh at how ugly the other guys are. Also ERV, the whole FfTB thing is the athiest equivalent to "Obummer". It's evidence that everything else the person says should be disregarded.

      Delete
    5. If you don't like my article length, tough. If you prefer Readers' Digest style of shortening writings, that's ok. Everyone's got different tastes. But don't tell me what mine should be.

      "could be involved in this behaviour"? She says they are and points to a small group of men specifically, using the disclaimer "well, not all of them" or something like that. That's enough to create unnecessary suspicion on ALL the men in that group, disclaimer or not. They all now carry the stigma of whatever vague sexual misconduct the Prude Police is charging them with. That's in the 'time to name names and behaviours' zone.

      Instead of their own makeshift legal/penal system, how about the organizers do the most logical thing. If their is a valid complaint (valid in that the behaviour fits the legal definition of sexual harassment or sexual assault), CALL THE POLICE. Duh. Don't be like the catholics and fail to report sexual abuse, preferring to deal with it privately.

      And if you think that will deter women from reporting something, then ask yourself was her complaint even worth considering as bad or reportable? According to Zvan, a woman who is too timid to break away from a conversation with someone, has been harassed. But I'm sure she damn well knows that it's not sexual harassment at all and would never consider it serious, or she'd go to the police. Her example is merely the woman having some anxiety or self esteem problems or something. She has not been harassed by the man she was talking with.

      On a lighter note, I now have one of my all time favourite songs from decades ago going in my head: Roberta Flack "with his words, killing me softly" What a voice and melody. Strange words though. :)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1eOsMc2Fgg

      Delete
    6. Why do you have to spin things to this degree? We all have access to the articles you linked to. How is it worth the amount of effort you put into mischaracterizing other peoples work? It makes my brain hurt. In Jen's article that you linked to, she talks about specific behaviors. If a speaker gropes any woman at a conference without permission, or has a habit of repeatedly following women back to their room or repeatedly making advances to women that have shot them down I want to know that I shouldn't be supporting that speaker. I also don't want this to be used as a weapon in cases where it's invented or misconstrued. They're trying to create some kind of system to prevent exactly the thing you're attacking them for doing, and you're offering an option that would only be much more harmful. I'm not 100% sold on anything I've seen there, but at least they're being constructive.
      I feel pretty strongly that there are behaviors that may not be directly illegal or that would warrant reporting to police but that may be harmful to the movement/turn women away. Whether its something like groping or worse, or just repeatedly not taking no for an answer, we need to have a system that allows people to come forward safely. Every population has its share of sexist jerks, even our own, and even if its a very small share. Jen even goes so far as to state that the problem is with a minority of the sexist jerks. She was deliberately trying NOT to create unnecessary suspicion on all the men in that group. And yes, the treatment of women, including Watson, who come forward will affect others willingness to come forward. I'd rather provide an avenue where they can feel safe that it won't affect reputation/future employment, especially if it's something much more serious than Elevatorgate.
      I apologize for the length comment. I didn't mean to suggest you're being too verbose. I just don't understand why you wasted so much energy on bomb throwing when you could be working toward something CONSTRUCTIVE. If you don't like their idea, that's fine. But unless you think there is NO chance of any speaker crossing the line, why not work on an alternative?
      I'll apologize for the glass houses comment too. I really try not to stoop to that level, but any time I see someone attacking another's appearance I react more out of emotion than logic.

      Delete
    7. Following a wall of text that I could barely get through, Anonymous says "I apologize for the length comment. I didn't mean to suggest you're being too verbose. I just don't understand why you wasted so much energy on bomb throwing when you could be working toward blah blah blah..."

      You're a funny one, Anonymous, a funny one.

      Delete
    8. Only slightly longer than your wall :). Slow days at work leave me with too much time to type. Have a good one.

      Delete
    9. No problem. Have a good one too.

      Delete
  4. Im not saying theyre ugly (well, personality-wise, theyre disgusting she-beasts), Jen is.

    If these specters are going after pretty girls, the sister-wives at FfTB should be perfectly fine, and apparently, they are, because they have no first hand experience.

    Jen said it, not me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OverlappingMagisteriaMay 23, 2012 at 4:23 PM

      I don't see how Jen is calling herself ugly at all (not that it would be relevant to the discussion in any case). If anything, her post was placing herself as one of pretty ones:

      "... with warnings that [the speakers] often make unwanted and aggressive sexual advances toward young pretty women and that I should not be alone with them."

      In other words, the speakers are targeting pretty girls and Jen is getting a warning because she is a potential target. She is one of the pretty girls.

      And are you seriously saying that just because they have no first hand experience that they must therefore not be pretty? As if an aggressive speaker would instantly hit on every pretty girl at every conference? According to your weird logic, unless someone is currently ogling you at this moment, you must not be attractive.

      I would think you would value logic a little bit more. And the whole "Haha you're ugly" retorts are really immature.

      Delete
    2. They target young pretty girls.

      Either Jen is saying she is not young and pretty, thus has not been targeted, or Jen is saying she is young and pretty and has benefited from 'advanced warning' (able to avoid interactions), but is unwilling to protect other young pretty women by 'naming names'.

      You, and apparently Jen would rather be the latter than the former.

      I would rather be former than the latter. And apparently I am too because no one has preyed on me at conferences.

      Of course, theres always the possibility that the reason this specter hasnt preyed on Jen and I has nothing to do with looks, but the fact it doesnt exist, or has a logical explanation in the real world a la Scooby Doo...

      Naaaaw you and Betty Parris keep havin fun.

      Delete
    3. Naw, Abbie, no one has preyed on you at conferences because the news has spread that the Arbiter of Womanhood has revoked your vagina license, and given you a dick instead. No one digs chick with dick, or if they do, they will try their best to hide it.

      Delete
    4. OverlappingMagisteriaMay 23, 2012 at 9:40 PM

      You apparently didn't read one of my paragraphs. I'll post it again. Read carefully. There will be a quiz later!

      "And are you seriously saying that just because they have no first hand experience that they must therefore not be pretty? As if an aggressive speaker would instantly hit on every pretty girl at every conference? According to your weird logic, unless someone is currently ogling you at this moment, you must not be attractive."

      Delete
    5. Meow Heintje! Your trans friends at FfTB don't mind you using their gender identity as an insult?

      Delete
    6. I've been to many conferences with 'famous' speakers. I've seen what happens after their talks - most people leave, a handful surround them to chat. They usually leave with people they know pretty well, and go off on their own. Might they run into conference attendees later at a bar or restaurant somewhere? Quite possibly. I do, however, have first hand experience with the whole feminist victimology mindset - my wife. We had been married for about 3 years when, as she was working on her degree, she decided to get a minor in Women's Studies. I thought - good for her! She had had pretty rough teen years, with her parents getting divorced and her taking the brunt of the fall out (not the blame, but the 'I can't afford to buy you new pants because of the divorce - even as a new speed boat sits in the yard, that sort of thing). We had a fairly 'progressive' marriage - I did all the cooking, most of the laundry, the wife took care of the finances, etc. But her attitude began to change when she was taking these classes. The first hint that something was going occurred one night at dinner. As usual, I had cooked and served dinner then cleared the table after. As was the norm for the last 3 years, I expected to see the wife go into the kitchen and do the dishes - division of labor and all that. But she just looked at me. I asked her what was going on, she answered "You made the mess, YOU clean it up." The 'mess' being the dinner that I had made and served. So, I replied "OK, I will just cook for myself from now on." I was told not to be so "stupid." This sort of thing went on for a bit, and it started to permeate the, um, bedroom. Apparently, she had been told - outright - in one of her feminist classes that performing oral sex on men is 'degrading' and enjoyed by men because it 'humiliates' the woman and shows them who is in power, since the woman is on her knees with the man standing over her. I thought this was silly, since we had NEVER used that position for oral sex, and I sort of thought that she would have known that - and by the way, men performing oral sex on women was perfectly fine. But not for me, not any more. I stopped cold turkey, and within a week or so, I was asked why I wouldn't do it any more, and I replied. "Gee, I don't know. Why do YOU think?" A few days later, she reversed her position on all that stuff. I thought that the field would give her more confidence, that sort of thing, but what it seemed to do instead was brainwash her into believing these largely embellished 'offenses', tenuous 'connections', and such. It really damaged our marriage for a while. So perhaps I am a bit jaded. Instead of focusing on real problems, like violence against women, they (the atheist blogger types)are focusing on the supposed behavior of the poor saps that can't read social cues and keeping lists of 'bad atheists' whose evils are "documented" via anonymous anecdotes - and if one, even another female, dares question any of it, they are cast out!
      Incredible.

      Delete
    7. "Apparently, she had been told - outright - in one of her feminist classes that performing oral sex on men is 'degrading' and enjoyed by men because it 'humiliates' the woman and shows them who is in power, since the woman is on her knees with the man standing over her."

      It's ridiculous, but they really do spread that lie. I once was seeing a man who some of his friends were radfems. I knew one of them, and she had told me long before I ever got together with him, she said as though this was a good thing, "[guy's name] doesn't like women to do oral on him, because he knows it's considered degrading".

      So, when we had sex, sure enough he was hesitant just as I was about to... you know. We had to talk for about 15 or 20 minutes, with me explaining that it's NOT degrading by default even though some radfems assume that it always is. I asked "are you feeling degraded doing it to me? Well, I'm not either when doing it to you". Once I had finally convinced him he was NOT doing something horrible to me by letting me do that, we had a very good time from then on, doing anything we wanted with no hangups about any of it. :)

      Feminism can fuck up people's sex lives sometimes, with their unbacked claims and assertions of human psychology.

      Delete
    8. Heintje, I was very tired, and fucked up. I thought you were an FfTBer saying that for serious. Upon rereading, including your name, it's obvious you were kidding. My apologies.

      Delete
  5. Sven, Jen left the door wide open on that one. The arguments against their behaviour stand tall on their own. So tall, that it's hardly unfair to squeeze a laugh out of this twisted, sad situation. What's the bigger wrong, their no-evidence accusations that will affect people's reputations and incomes, or a little giggle over Jen herself accidently inferring that she is ugly?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you had actually read Jen's blog post about it you would know that she is advocating instituting a way to report issues as they happen precisely so that she *doesn't* accuse people on hearsay.

      Delete
    2. You may want to be careful with your giggles there, Scented. People in glass houses...

      Delete
    3. You mean 'implying', not 'inferring'.
      Which she didn't, as is clear to anybody who read your mined little quote in the context of the rest of the sentence and the one before. I'm afraid Ms. Smith's logic here is as nastily poor as usual.
      And I don't care which is the 'bigger wrong', dear Muslima. But it's hard to see how anybody's reputation is in jeopardy if names aren't named. Nor do I see how anybody is entitled to the lucrative income that must come from preaching to the choir at atheist conventions.

      Delete
    4. Yes, if only there was a list of transgressions somewhere... we could call them 'laws'! And then if someone broke one of these so-called 'laws', we would need to have someone report the abuse to... hmm... we could get a whole group of people to enforce the 'laws'! We could call them 'cops'!

      And then... then we could get a group of people together to weigh the evidence of what happened... but that group would have to be lead by someone who was an expert on the 'laws'... How about we call them 'judges'! Thats the ticket!

      Yay! A system of 'laws' enforced by 'cops' and then evidence weighed and ruled on by 'judges'!

      What a MAAAAAAAAAAAHVELOUS NOVEL idea!

      But we arent talking about people breaking the law. We are talking about people (ugly, not famous, possibly non-existent people) asking other people (pretty young celebrities) for coffee. We are talking about Famous Atheists Guys picking up chicks... WHEN THEYRE MARRIED ("OH THE SANCTITY OF MAWAGE!" wail the atheists).

      Seriously, am I the *only* person here who has read 'The Crucible'?

      Delete
    5. People in glass houses...
      Exactly.

      A normal person confronted with someone saying someone else 'often make unwanted and aggressive sexual advances toward young pretty women' would say "LOL! Then Im safe! LOL!!!!"

      A vain, insecure person says "Why yes! Yes I am young and pretty! I better go tell everyone on the internet someone told me Im young and pretty!...... WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT MY LOOKS??? BAAAAAAAAAW!"

      Delete
    6. Giggle away, Anony. Why should I care? And when you're finished, take note how I'm mostly responding to Zvan in this article.

      Sven, pay attention. On Zvan's first article, she says names will be named in secret to conference organizers, asking them not to hire the accused by name, otherwise how could the conference not invite them? Of course they are told names.

      Oh ERV, I think they've taken cue from the catholic church who seem to think they don't have to use proper police/legal avenues for sexual crimes. The feminist harassment rules will have the same people be the victims, cops, judges and juries all at once. Only the crimes have been changed, to protect the guilty exaggerators and maker-uppers of things.

      Delete
  6. So, Sven, now that we've got the joke part out of the way, let me ask you something serious. What do you think about their plan to secretly name and ban with no evidence or chance for the accused to hear the charges and defend himself?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, basically I don't give a fuck about atheist or skeptic conventions, nor about most of the people who Speak at them. But, what the hell, I'll just point out that nobody's proposed doing anything without evidence. If enough women report having been skeeved out by the same clueless ass, that's evidence, whether you are privy to the details or not. But I couldn't care less if some sexist creeps get secretly disinvited from speaking at conventions. It's not a court of law, there's no right to a competent defense. And it's no witchhunt, no matter how many Miller references get tossed around. You see, witches don't exist. Therefore anybody accusing somebody else of witchcraft is either lying or deluded. Whereas women get creeped out by sexist pigs all the time. It's no stretch at all.

      Yeah, but mainly I just think you and Abbie are juvenile assholes.

      Delete
    2. It's not a crime on a man's part if a woman thinks he's creepy, UNLESS he has displayed actual behaviour that is harmful, like stalking, trying to pressure her into sex, things like that.

      So, just like you have no right to not be offended by free speech, a woman has no right to not feel creeped out, unless of course, as I've mentioned, he does harmful BEHAVIOURS.

      Delete
    3. If enough women report having been skeeved out by the same clueless ass, that's evidence, whether you are privy to the details or not. But I couldn't care less if some sexist creeps get secretly disinvited from speaking at conventions. It's not a court of law, there's no right to a competent defense.
      Fuck you Sven. It is hysterics like you that contribute to the lowering of standards of evidence. I hope you perish in some such scandal.. thats the only way you will ever learn.
      Feminists operate as a herd. They arent bothered about justice meted out to each individual, irrespective of race/sex/..etc. They just operate as a herd. They just want to "protect the wimmin (as a group)". Thats why they dont care for individual "gender traitors".
      Just as they are trying to lower the standards of evidence here, they have done the same in law. for e.g in schools, male students can get their lives destroyed through accusatioons of rape combined with lower standard of evidence i.e preponderance of evidence (51%) rather than any higher level that we are used to.
      http://thefire.org/article/13758.html
      The incident that led to Warner's punishment took place on the night of December 13, 2009. Sometime before February 9, 2010, Warner's accuser reported an allegation of sexual assault to the university and the Grand Forks Police Department. UND held a hearing for Warner on February 11, 2010, and informed him on February 16 that he had been found guilty of "Violations of Criminal or Civil Laws, Sexual Assault, and Interference [with members of the university community]." He was banned from campus and suspended from the university for three years.
      In finding Warner guilty, UND used the weak "preponderance of the evidence" standard (50.01% certainty) to determine guilt or innocence—the very same standard recently imposed upon every federally funded college in the country under an April 2011 regulation from the federal Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights.
      UND's reliance on the "preponderance of the evidence" standard lowered the accuracy of the proceedings so much that the police and the university arrived at very different results. Using what the university later insisted was the very same evidence, UND's campus tribunal convicted Warner of sexual assault, while the Grand Forks Police Department determined that Warner's accuser had lied about what had happened.

      Delete
    4. Yes - I heard from a friend of a friend that Sven is one of the biggest offenders!
      THAT is my evidence! Now ban Sven from this blog so we can insult him and fret over what to do about the now established FACT that he makes uninvited sexual advances!

      Delete
    5. I'll put him on that list I'm keeping. :D

      Delete
  7. SN, you've got some reading comprehension issues. Where does she advocate the creation of a speaker blacklist?

    So maybe you'd encourage them to do other things instead, like implementing and publicizing tough harrassment policies at conventions, or by establishing a group to which violations of said policies could be reported.

    WAIT, that IS what she is talking about!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Go to the linked articles. You will see talk of the list.

      Before implementing severe and tough measures, could you perhaps convince me first that there is indeed a problem?

      Please actually read my article before commenting. It shows that you didn't.

      Delete
    2. Here, I'll do some work for you, since I suspect you are unable. At the links in the article above, McCreight says "But women in the movement had formed an unofficial underground network of knowledge, making sure to warn people about who to avoid." and "After I made my comment, dozens of people kept asking me for the names on The List (which I didn’t give – see my previous points)." Over at Zvan's, she also talks about it "When organizers stop inviting some of the people on this list, unless sexism is a primary concern for donors, unless experiences are allowed to be made public, organizers get overruled."

      Now then, about that reading comprehension slur. Check yourself first. It appears YOUR reading comprehension is a bit weak.

      Delete
    3. However, in a more charitable reading of the same thing, couldn't it be constructed as: In order to avoid anonymous blacklists that have no evidence and don't get heard by everyone we should make a system that works on preventing transgressions in a fair manner.

      Delete
    4. Without the 'guilty' getting a fair REAL legal trial, I would not trust as valid any labels of 'transgressor' by non-LEOs. Make-'em-yourself kangaroo courts are a bad idea.

      If an assault happens at a conference, CALL THE POLICE.

      If an assault happened in church would you call the priest or the police? The police of course.

      If a waiter molests your kid, do you go to the head chef for help, or do you call the police? Arggh! You call the police!

      If we hide crimes by not calling the police, then we are no better than the catholics, even if we retire those who we determine guilty rather than recirculate them like the catholics do.

      Delete
    5. I would not trust as valid any labels of 'transgressor' by non-LEOs.

      In other words, "until he's convicted, you can't do anything".

      That is, more or less, what you're saying here. Because, of course, an *accusation* isn't enough. And, of course, behavior that falls short of whatever the local legal standard of "criminal harassment" is OK, even if it does scare people off, because, well, LEOs aren't going to label people transgressors if they haven't transgressed.

      If an assault happens at a conference, CALL THE POLICE.

      That's the community standard. What if something happens that isn't quite an assault? What if the person who would have been the victim managed to extricate themselves from the situation before it became an assault. What if the person, for their own reasons, was not comfortable reporting it as an assault?*

      Oh, then never mind, it can't be brought up. Because an LEO hasn't declared someone a transgressor.

      Don't think I don't notice that you've gone from "transgressions" to "criminal assaults" in your description here. No one who is arguing for exchanging information is arguing for it to hide crimes; they're arguing for it to *prevent* crimes. See the difference?




      *As a note, this is *not* a hypothetical.

      Delete
    6. "isn't quite an assault?" means it isn't an assault. Feminists can't be trusted to determine what's an assault, or every mere time a male looks at one the wrong way, or disagrees with her, would get him prison time. Just look how Zvan was calling willing conversations a probably assault. She believes that women are unable to leave conversations they don't like, so talking with them, is forcing them to converse with you.

      As you can see, that conversation is NOT a REAL assault or even sexist event. But that's the kind of shit the femtheists want investigated by their new little department of sexism they are playing with. That's the kind of shit where the male will get in shit if a woman merely says "I couldn't break away from the conversation with him. I'm too weak to just say 'gotta go nice meeting you bye' cuz I'm a woman and he had male privelege". Seriously, that's the kind of shit you'd see at a feminist-run kangaroo court.

      Feminists like to bypass the real legal system, because they want to consider guilty many more people than the actual law would. All women would likely be granted automatic assumptions of credibility in cases where there is no evidence. Is that fair? How would the accused get a fair trial when feminists can call any behaviour they want 'sexist' or 'harassment' or 'an assault'?

      With this crowd, stick with the real police. They're not perfect, but I suspect a radfem-run kanga-court would be far, far worse.

      Delete
    7. "isn't quite an assault?" means it isn't an assault.

      And therefore, not of interest to most LEOs. But still quite capable of being convention-ruining for people. Why are we required to go "Oh, it's not criminal behavior, so talking about it amongst ourselves and deciding (for example) that we don't want to deal with it is a kangaroo court".

      Seriously, that's the kind of shit you'd see at a feminist-run kangaroo court.

      Funny -- I've been involved in *exactly* the sort of feminist-run discussions around invitations/etc. that you're referring to, and that's not what I saw.

      How would the accused get a fair trial when feminists can call any behaviour they want 'sexist' or 'harassment' or 'an assault'?

      I believe your feminists are made of straw; I recommend trying some flesh-and-blood ones, but they might undercut your argument.

      With this crowd, stick with the real police.

      You'll see in a comment below, if you keep reading, one of the big problems with this argument.

      Delete
  8. I find it interesting that when attempting to deal with rape and sexual harassment there is always a group of people who push back against the discussion by calling it a witch hunt. A witch hunt has always been a term that was applied to women who were seen as trouble makers, morally impure, etc. Worse, these women were falsely accused and then killed.

    I have yet to see any of the women you're accusing of witch hunting call for anyone's death or anyone's slander. They are calling for help in dealing with a real situation that occurs in order to make conferences safe for everyone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps you didn't read my article. I am questioning whether these claims without evidence of sexual harassment/assault are true. If they can be shown to be convincingly true, I would never try to suppress their words.

      Tell me, on what evidence are you considering this to be a "real situation" (including who did what, etc)?

      Delete
    2. Scented Nectar - I think this is a more complex issue than you are acknowledging. There are many reasons why people keep shtum about harassment and assault - not least being that victims often lack watertight substantive evidence for what happened, and feel that they will be disbelieved, or that there will be some kind of backlash if they do speak up. These are genuine, even if misguided, fears that people harbour. It doesn't make their claims necessarily suspect, if they won't simply spit everything out. Nor does it make their claims valid - but perhaps the "EVIDENCE, bitches?!" tone is a little harsh given the nature of the topic?

      Delete
    3. Sites with authors who consider themselves skeptics and evidence-based, are places where I certainly DO expect at least some evidence to go with any accusations. I've heard the feminist "we're all weak and scared to talk" bull since the 1980s back when I WAS a radfem, spouting that same excuse bullshit myself. I'm not falling for it. It's an emotional appeal of worried what-ifs and slippery slopes. I know it inside out.

      Delete
    4. The thing is - she hasn't made any specific accusations as of yet that she has to defend - other than a vague reference to what she's been told or had emailed to her, about a general problem regarding how some men are reportedly approaching some women at conventions. What do you wish as evidence at this point? That Jen show some anonymised emails she's received regarding this? Or that she document in full that the reported incident of harassment actually happened as her correspondent claimed?

      And irrespective of how you feel about feminist ideology - it is a fact that sexual harassment and abuse do happen, they are often difficult to substantiate after the fact, and victims do often stay silent for various reasons. Feminists may have used that narrative to death - but it still does retain some factual value. In light of that, I'm still at least willing to find it credible, pending further evidence, that Jen is genuinely finding herself in a frustrating bind just now - at least within her own mind - of hearing a lot of credible (to her) reports of harassment, which she can't properly substantiate and isn't at will to spill all the beans about. And for what it's worth, I empathise with her since I'm in a similar bind in another completely unrelated situation.

      Of course, she could have kept her mouth shut until she'd acquired sufficient evidence she could relate even just to show us what people have been telling her - but that's a peccadillo I'm willing to indulge her, if she is sincere. I daresay that I am more concerned about the possibility of the allegations being true - of speakers at conventions being inappropriate with women - than about the possibility that any response to the allegations might, maybe cause a guy to lose some speaking gigs, pending some kind of further enquiry.

      If there is a genuine problem - I want to know about it, and I want something appropriate to be done about it. I don't want a witch-hunt, but if alarm bells are raised, the issue needs to be investigated, as impartially and sensitively as possible.

      Delete
    5. Timid Atheist, who are you claiming was raped?

      Delete
    6. LP, that's NOT a peccadillo *I'm* willing to indulge in her, but I'm sure she appreciates your blind faith in her.

      Delete
    7. It's not blind faith - it's merely a more indulgent reservation of judgement, pending further evidence. Additionally, though - it can't be a bad thing if conventions are putting in place procedures to deal with certain kinds of inappropriate behaviour - so long as these procedures are drafted to be as sound and impartial as possible. I think that women who lie or grossly exaggerate about supposed incidents of harassment deserve almost as much contempt as men who do actually harass women. And I do think that there should be procedures in place to try to avert BOTH situations occurring. Indeed, concerns about men being purposefully blackballed out of spite was raised on Zvan's site - but it still doesn't stifle the fact that, if there's low level harassment going on - if these incidents are genuinely occurring - it's best that we know about it and have procedures to deal with it.

      Delete
    8. They are spreading this gossip around without proof. They are making a big deal about it. Are they focusing on the occasional incident? No. They are pointing at a tiny subgroup in our community. She SHOULD name names at that point. Otherwise the others in that group are treated badly and suspiciously.

      Most of all though, without any proof of her claims, don't accuse yet! Maybe later if she collects any real proof (anecdotes don't count, try secret recordings if you REALLY want people to believe this shit), THEN she can say "he did this or that". Then we can discuss if it was a bad thing, and if so, how bad.

      Because, don't forget what they are considering crimes. Zvan thinks that if a public figure is talking with a fan, he's probably assaulting her by not letting her leave the conversation. Do you see how fucking ridiculous that is? No one is forcing anyone to have a conversation, and certainly no one is forcing the fan to remain in that conversation. It doesn't even make sense. People love chatting with the public figures they admire and are fans of. I think Zvan's brain is miswired or something.

      Delete
    9. You know, as a male, I think I will just NOT go to any more conferences/Conventions. I have seen too many good people's lives ruined by just this type of accusation. I have been yelled at for holding a door open for a woman. I have been accused of harassing a woman for noticing her necklace (when she was wearing a blouse that exposed half her breasts). It is to the point that I ***NEVER*** pay compliments to female coworkers about anything other than job performance (This includes the dishes they bring to company pot-lucks...)

      I know not every woman is going to be seeing every male as a potential rapist, but it only takes one to ruin my day/conference/life.

      Is/Was there a power imbalance between men and women? yes.
      Is every relationship this way? NO.

      Should there be clear rules about harassment? YES.
      Should there be a "backroom" list? NO.

      Accusation =/= truth
      Perception =/= reality

      Delete
    10. You know how the feminists are always saying that every man is a potential rapist? Well every woman is a potential false accuser.

      The feminists only want things to go one way. That one way is that they are always innocent victims deserving of nonstop compensation and overcompensation.

      And in the same way as in the anti-commie days, feminists are always on the lookout to report a dissident, which in their case is anyone (especially if the person has a penis) who doesn't bow to all their claims and demands.

      Delete
  9. I'm saddened by what I have read here. I find nothing wrong with disagreeing with others, but when you launch personal attacks based on people's looks you make yourself look petty and infantile.

    What I've witnessed here and on other blogs is why I don't get involved with the skeptic community despite believing strongly in rational thinking. As a community skeptics can't seem to disagree without name calling and other personal attacks. It is sad and depressing for a community that prides itself on rational thinking to behave this way and is the reason why I and probably others don't become more involved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, it doesn't sound like you're even talking about this article. Did you even read it and discover my concerns? You didn't address a single one here in your comment. You just seem upset that there is some discord, but don't seem to even know what it's about.

      Delete
    2. And further to that, you are addressing only some off topic joking here in the comment area. Please read the actual article and address that.

      Delete
    3. You began a conversation in the comments section and people responded to it... that is typically the point of the comments section. You might consider the lack of comments on your article a reflection of its content.

      Delete
    4. You might consider the lack of comments on your article a reflection of its content.

      Or, its an example of how amazingly fast otherwise stupid people can find an excuse not to address valid content/criticism.

      I do apologize, to Scented Nectar, for pointing out Jens vanity, because it gave McCreight et ass the excuse to ignore Scenteds valid criticism.


      They cant, so "EVERYONE TELL ME IM PRETTY!!! BAAAAAAAAAAW!"

      Delete
    5. ERV, that's not your fault. I blame Jen entirely for her own action/inaction. If that joke wasn't available to her, she'd have come up with another sidetrack anyways, to avoid any of my questions or points.

      All the West Side Story songs are going to appear in my dreams now tonight. "I've got a social disease, I've got a social disease, gee officer Krumpke... :)

      Delete
    6. "Or, its an example of how amazingly fast otherwise stupid people can find an excuse not to address valid content/criticism."

      This argument can only, potentially, be applied to people who agree with Jen. It's not like only Jen's readers read this blog, therefore, we would still expect comments from all the "smart people" who agreed with Scented Nectar and could care less about whether another blogger is pretty or not. I counted six people who seemed to respond positively to this post. The fact is that the response to the actual article has been largely... silent. Maybe its time to take the hint.

      Delete
    7. I have read your article and I've also read Jen's article and I think you are grossly misinterpreting what Jen's article said. Nowhere in Jen's article did she say that she wanted to create a list of speakers who made unwanted sexual advances and get them banned. Instead she said that this was not what should happen. People should not be accused of sexual harassment based on hearsay.

      My comment on your article was saying that it was okay to disagree with others but resorting to personal attack or as you put it 'just joking' in the comments was uncalled for. I wasn't aware that a critique of all the points you made was required in order to leave a comment about personally attacking other bloggers.

      Delete
    8. Anon, before coming to that conclusion, have you separately counted how many are newbies here, coming from McCreight's site? Are you one too? That might explain the difference in audience focus. The McCreight visitors are only able to utter "waaa, you say ugly to her waaa", while the normal people, smaller in number though they be, have actually read the article. Most of you McCraters can't see past the joke comment. Your offended over-sensitive feelings blind you to everything else.

      Riayn, so many people are denying what they said in their first articles,now that they did a fast re-do/change of topic to harassment rules, done in their next articles. The first articles admitted to the list:

      At the links in my article above, McCreight says "But women in the movement had formed an unofficial underground network of knowledge, making sure to warn people about who to avoid." and "After I made my comment, dozens of people kept asking me for the names on The List (which I didn’t give – see my previous points)." Over at Zvan's, she also talks about it "When organizers stop inviting some of the people on this list, unless sexism is a primary concern for donors, unless experiences are allowed to be made public, organizers get overruled."

      Delete
    9. Also, Riayn, I am an adult who likes adult joking around. I expect anyone visiting this blog to at least tolerate crude humour. We are not children, who hear an insult and burst into tears. We all can laugh and throw an equally good one back.

      In other words, I don't think it a big deal that Jen was joked about here in the comments. I even enjoyed the jokes. I you disbelieve me, feel free to make jokes about me. The most that will happen is that I give it a rating somewhere between hilarious and "where's the punchline? I don't get it". If someone gets me with an especially clever joke or insult, I let them know that that was a pretty good one. Remember, as long as your mind is adult, sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you.

      Delete
    10. "Anon, before coming to that conclusion, have you separately counted how many are newbies here, coming from McCreight's site? Are you one too? That might explain the difference in audience focus. The McCreight visitors are only able to utter "waaa, you say ugly to her waaa", while the normal people, smaller in number though they be, have actually read the article."

      As I said before, I can see that you're dismissing the negative reviews because of the "waaa" factor. However, if your article was substantive, you should still have considerable comments from your own readers and people who found you independently. You have very few positive comments, and even those are rarely about the article. The fact that you have had so much trouble initiating actual, useful discussion should not be ignored, its not like only Jen's readers exist in the world.

      Regardless, you could address my comments by simply writing something that actually does generate useful debate.

      Delete
    11. I guess you don't realize that I don't care about these guestimate 'stats' or whatever you're doing. Also, I do not agree that your weird number game determines the debatefulness of my writing. And who even cares about debatefulness anyways. Some articles have it, some don't. If you're not happy with what you have found here, feel free to alt-F4 at any time.

      Delete
    12. "However, if your article was substantive,..."

      I think article detailing a conspsiracy to defame people and a bunch of smarmy self-serving excuses and justifications for that kind of Star Chamber behavior is pretty substantive.

      And the standard whine about beauty standard remarks sounds espcially silly when looks were central to the original article being discussed.

      Delete
    13. "And the standard whine about beauty standard remarks sounds espcially silly when looks were central to the original article being discussed." Excellent point. They claimed this was especially happening to young, pretty women, which in itself is also an interesting claim. Pretty according to whose standards? And Not Pretty according to whose standards? How did they tally up the claims in a manner that recorded the prettiness status while maintaining anonymity? Oh yeah, they didn't. Someone, anonymous to us all but Jen, maybe even non-existent, privately warned McCreight that that is how things are.

      Delete
    14. "And who even cares about debatefulness anyways. Some articles have it, some don't. If you're not happy with what you have found here, feel free to alt-F4 at any time."

      Fair enough. I wish success for you in the future.

      Delete
  10. Just going to crack out some good ol' fashioned Yorkshire speaking here:

    Love, you've made yourself look like a rare prat.

    No matter what else you might throw at Jen, Rebecca and Stephanie, at least when they write blog posts they cite their data properly, they make passionate, believable cases, and they engage people. You just look like an idiot. An over-privileged idiot.

    I love that you drew attention to this, by posting a link to it on Jen's thread. Thanks, because I genuinely needed a laugh. I wasn't laughing at personal appearances though, I was laughing at YOU. I still am, actually.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your concern about how others might see me. Now then, that out of the way, I find it very interesting that you are telling me they have citations and believable cases. They both forgot to show or link to any evidence for their claims. In fact, they even forgot to even tell us who did what.

      So, since you seem to have seen this citing or proof that makes their cases believable, can you point me to it? Can you tell me who did what, and what/where the evidence is? I'd be much obliged. Thanks. :)

      Delete
    2. No matter what else you might throw at Jen, Rebecca and Stephanie, at least when they write blog posts they cite their data...

      REALLY?

      Can you provide an actual example of 'cited data' in their posts related to this issue? And please do not claim that 'citing' anonymous reports from anonymous women claiming ambiguous offenses are 'data' supportive of the notion that some ambiguous number of 'famous' speakers at atheist conventions engage in misogynistic practices.
      One could just as easily compile an anonymous list of anecdotes and emails from anonymous people making ambiguous claims of untoward behavior engaged in by the Skepchicks.

      Would you accept such a compilation at face value? for some reason, I doubt you would.

      Delete
    3. Anony, you are too truthful, and make much too much sense. I think Jess's brain just popped. :)

      Delete
  11. Reframe, reframe, reframe. It's not about the list, it's about the joke. Got it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes! Yes. Thank you. The list is really what this is about, but so few see that. :)

      Delete
    2. It was a good joke though. I chortled. Well, not really a joke. More of a humorous observation. Vanity exposed = priceless. I shall from this day forward refer to myself as a handsome young man.

      Delete
    3. refer to myself as a handsome young man.

      And scream like fuck if anyone suggests otherwise (even if its you).

      Delete
    4. Since there is no pic of you in your avatar, I'll try and remember to picture you as a handsome young man. :)

      Delete
  12. OverlappingMagisteriaMay 23, 2012 at 5:02 PM

    Scented Nectar, since you are begging for a response to your actual article rather than the heinous joke made in the comments, I'll give it a go. Though I apologize it'll be short since I'm on the run.

    You seem to be over exaggerating what Jen has been saying. If you read what she wrote, she does NOT want to publish a list of bad mannered speakers and have them blacklisted. She is mentioning that many women have been made uncomfortable even by speakers and is looking for ways to address this issue. I hope that we can all agree that this is worth addressing; I would want everyone to feel comfortable at any event. Her main suggestion was to have an anti-harassment policy encouraged at events. One of the things this would do is create an avenue where things like this CAN be reported so we can go beyond just anecdotes.

    I don't see where this "witch hunt" is happening. Only serious concern that there have been numerous reports of some creepy behaviors. Jen specifically stated that she COULDN'T publicly shame any speakers because all there is so far is hearsay and anecdotes.


    In either case, I don't see why an anti-harassment policy would be a bad thing. These issues have been around for a a while at conferences and need to be dealt with, not ignored.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know she doesn't want it published. They are to be tried and convicted in secret and not even told that it's happening. I find that appalling.

      As for women feeling uncomfortable, everyone has things that make them feel uncomfortable, reasonable or not. That's why it's important to hear details. Maybe the guy was NOT in the wrong, but the woman's emotions got all scared and freaked anyways, like in ElevatorGate where EG was a perfect gentleman, accepting "no" with no fuss. Yet, Rebecca found his invitation uncomfortable. In that situation, he is not at fault, but no one is saying she's not entitled to her emotions, just that it's not his fault. I suspect many other claims are similar, like how Zvan considers seeing a woman conversing with a public speaker to be a case of him harassing her by default. There are lots of claims of bad that are not really bad at all (on the parts of the men they're blaming that is).

      I seriously doubt they will open any claim to real questions and objective scrutiny. They never have yet.

      Who will be defining "creepy behaviour" for the rules? Will it be purely emotion based (hers only that is), or will they have to actually define some kind of behaviour. "He had an unattractive, scary look in his eye, and I think he liked me" won't cut it, you know?

      If Jen and others can't publicly name and specify what these men are accused of, then she shouldn't even be messing with this. These are reputation ruining accusations, plus they libellously cost damage$ in lost speaking fees for the accused.

      Delete
    2. OverlappingMagisteriaMay 23, 2012 at 9:35 PM

      I think you confirmed my point and everyone else who has criticized you post. You should read Zvan's article again. Focus on the part where she writes "Q: So, uh, what do we actually do about this?"

      Cause this:

      "I know she doesn't want it published. They are to be tried and convicted in secret and not even told that it's happening. I find that appalling."

      is grade-A conspiracy speculation. Your article is built of straw

      Delete
    3. "If you read what she wrote, she does NOT want to publish a list of bad mannered speakers and have them blacklisted. "

      If she is spreading a list around, even by word of mouth, that is making it public, that is publishing it. That's quite simple. It doesn't require a printing press.

      This is not about anti-harrassment policies, although how someone can seek someone out for conversation and then accuse *them* of doing the harrassing is pretty comical in itself; this is about secret denunciations and rank cowardice.

      Delete
    4. While Jen's article seems to me to be against the "List," Zvan's FAQ's is bi-polar.

      The part cited by OM seems to be against a "List," but the rest of the FAQ's is full of Unquestioning acceptance:

      "Also, did you just express “skepticism” over this?" and
      "I recommend networking behind the scenes. "

      These are the attitudes and actions that this post is about. Maybe there is some evidence to support both possible views for Zven, but that just seems to me to be support for both an explicit policy AND a back-channels 'LIST'"

      Delete
    5. Zvan was all for it, wishing somehow to make it easier to convince events to use it. McCreight more quickly saw that many aspects of it would NOT go over well.

      They have both now switched over to harassment policies instead. At least with their public faces. Behind the scenes still? Who knows?

      My jaw nearly dropped to my desktop when I saw Zvan pre-emptively tell people they aren't allowed to use skepticism on this whole thing. I think she's nuttier than a fruitcake. :)

      Delete
  13. SN, either you didn't understand Jen's post, or you didn't read it, or perhaps you're deliberately mischaracterizing what she said. This is hilarious given the amount of complaining you're doing about people commenting on your article without having read it.

    Jen has not proposed the creation of a blacklist which would be used to prevent certain speakers from being invited to events. In fact, she explains clearly why such a list would be a bad solution:

    "Imagine what would happen if I published a list of names based on hearsay alone. I don’t have video evidence. I don’t even have personal experience – people now know I’m a loud mouth blogger, which makes me a terrible target. Even though I trust my friends to be truthful, and patterns of bad behavior make the hearsay convincing, it’s an easy target for skeptics. There’d be a flood of accusations that people are lying or oversensitive."

    While it is reasonable for Jen to believe her friends' reports, such anecdotes are not sufficient grounds to take any action against the offenders in question, and to do so could actually leave her open to accusations of libel or slander. Instead, Jen echoes Stephanie Zvan's suggestion of adopting anti-harassment policies:

    "...not only does having formal policies in place help protect your guests while this is being sorted out, but they provide a means of collecting and tracking this misbehavior. It’s much simpler to push back against pressure to include a speaker with formal tracking. It’s much simpler to share information with, “We had X number of violations of policy reported to us, and we have the records to back that up," rather than, “So-and-so did such-and-such according to some person I can’t name.""

    So what's being proposed is an explicit policy so everyone involved with the events knows beforehand what kind of behaviour is/is not acceptable. Instances of violations would presumably be investigated and kept on record, and this formal record may be used to help organizations decide whether or not to invite certain speakers back. This solution is pretty much the polar opposite of the blacklist based on hearsay, which you have ascribed to Jen.

    This solution seems perfectly reasonable to me, but if you disagree perhaps you should address it, rather than this strawman you've erected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Making the list private and secretive is what she's done (well, it might not be as secret as she thinks). She is scared to publish it, I agree. She would be open to libel for reputation and damage$. Yet, she unethically does it anyways, only unpublished, solely because she can avoid technically getting in shit for libel that way.

      Today, they have realized that they shouldn't have admitted to the list. The public agenda has been changed to a reporting/investigative system. Yesterday, Zvan wanted to collect anecdotes and use those as evidence. The reporting system would be a total sham if that happens.

      Delete
    2. The "list" you refer to is simply an aggregation of personal anecdotes that female attendees have passed along to each other as warnings. You make it sound as though Jen herself has created a secret list for the event organizers to use for banning speakers. This is completely unfounded, and it contradicts what Jen is actually saying: such a list, regardless of whether it's secret or public, is not enough. You also continue to ignore what Jen actually proposed in her post: the adoption of an anti-harassment policy.

      Delete
    3. I didn't say anything about which women started the list. You've assumed something in there. And since you, as many others here, don't seem to believe there even IS a list, here's a little cut and paste for you list truthers:

      So many people are denying what they said in their first articles, now that they've done a fast re-do/change of topic to harassment rules, done in their next articles. The first articles admitted to the list:

      At the links in my article above, McCreight says "But women in the movement had formed an unofficial underground network of knowledge, making sure to warn people about who to avoid." and "After I made my comment, dozens of people kept asking me for the names on The List (which I didn’t give – see my previous points)." Over at Zvan's, she also talks about it "When organizers stop inviting some of the people on this list, unless sexism is a primary concern for donors, unless experiences are allowed to be made public, organizers get overruled."

      Delete
    4. Your reading comprehension is just awful. I'm not going to bother addressing your weird assertion that I don't believe a list exists, except to direct you to my last comment where I clearly state the opposite.

      This tendency of yours to read what someone writes, and then accuse them of saying the exact opposite, is pretty much the entire problem here.

      There is no blacklist. No one is suggesting that speakers should be barred based on personal anecdotes. You're freaking out over a position that no one holds. And no, the quotes you just laid on me do not suggest otherwise.

      Delete
    5. Hmmm, you said "You make it sound as though Jen herself has created a secret list for the event organizers to use for banning speakers."

      So, I showed you quotes that showed you that was Jen and Zvan's original intent.

      Now you say: "I'm not going to bother addressing your weird assertion that I don't believe a list exists"

      I'm getting dizzy! Do I have to pay for this carnival ride?

      Delete
    6. Your quotes demonstrated no such thing. And if trying to comprehend the written word makes you dizzy, I can't help you.

      Delete
    7. I can't help you further. You would just have me spinning endlessly on this wheel of doubting the list, then calling it a weird assertion that you would doubt the list. Round and round we go, where we'll stop, NOBODY knows! Weeeeeeee!

      Delete
    8. You're equivocating two meanings of "list", and you know it. There is no blacklist. I'm going to bow out now because I'm tired of repeating myself. Try some Gravol.

      Delete
    9. Ooookay. You had two different meanings for list? I'll just step slowly back and out of this now, since you're on a different planet than me, and I don't know all the weird rules and meanings on yours. Bye now.

      Delete
  14. Wow, this whole article is a giant straw man wrapped up in a veneer of self righteousness. The main points being discussed are the creation of anti-harassment policies and a general heightened awareness of the issue.

    Not one name has actually been named, not one person accused of anything. Just a general claim that sexism happens (how shocking! It can't be true!!!) and a discussion of how to prevent it.

    I think the grade school taunt at the start of the comments really shows the true colors though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe you didn't read Zvan's article, to which my article is mostly responding.

      Zvan said they were in the small subset of our community of public speakers who have been written about already (for alleged sexism). With that small a group, it's only fair to name names and specific crimes. Otherwise the rest in that small group will have people thinking THEY must be doing it too.

      The comment does not play into my article's points, funny though it was, so how on earth can the comment say anything about my article's true colours?

      Delete
    2. and I quote:

      "You're right, they have nothing to worry about! Hahahahahhaha :D"

      Delete
    3. Robert H: "Not one name has actually been named, not one person accused of anything."

      One of the FTB bigwigs claims that the "evidence" has been documented. Presumable, this "documentation" contains names and accusations. Makes you wonder what they are going to do with it.

      Robert H: "The main points being discussed are the creation of anti-harassment policies."

      By launching a witch hunt, where people are guessing names. Jen, Svan, Greta et al seem to be implying that it is nobody associated with FfTB*. Well, that's a relief, because that means the culprit(s) must all be ERV types!!! The children.

      That's the game - they want to create a whip holder. Who came up the The Crucible? I love that. Perfect analogy.

      *I actually think it could be someone from the FfTB community. In fact, I've seen a couple of comments over on the FfTB sites suggesting one of the "sexist pigs" is a frequent poster at FTB, and is reputedly so pro-FTB, pro-Watson, etc. that it would be a shock to many to see him named.....

      Their hypocrisy is such, that it would not surprise me at all.

      Delete
    4. CT, I'd love to know the details on that one. Who is it? Greggie, Peezie, one of the self-depreciating feminist men in the comments? Maybe hug-addicted Jason forgets to ask permission first sometimes, or has scared someone by hugging while with a boner? :D

      Serious mode now. See how easy it is to come up with possible bad things about specific people when it's a small group and all you know is that one of them may be a bad apple? Makes us wonder about each and every one of them. No-name accusations that point to a small group are unfair. The innocent get extra suspicion just for being part of that group. It's time the Scaredycat Girl Brigade either names names AND what behaviours, or shuts the fuck up.

      Delete
    5. It's time the Scaredycat Girl Brigade either names names AND what behaviours, or shuts the fuck up.

      What, so you can go off on them as being half-baked, not enough evidence (since it didn't come from an LEO as you said above), etc., etc., and so forth?

      There's enough evidence (in the form of anecdote -- and in this sort of environment, that's most of what we're going to get ) that there exists a problem. What's the next step in the problem? Investigating the problem. And how do you investigate the problem? You ask people for their experiences (well, that, or else you set out honeytraps and see if you can catch people -- would you prefer that?) -- which means you need to talk about what you think is going on.

      "I have troubling data -- does anyone else have some" is a perfectly valid way to handle this in a small-group environment. You don't name names, since you don't have enough data to be sure -- but you ask if other people have seen things, too.

      I've been here, done this in different contexts; and it's not pretty, but unless it gets done, then the people who *are* being harrassed/etc. are going to continue to be, and be driven away from the community.

      Delete
  15. Wow, good job claiming that the other side has no facts and is making stuff up, demanding evidence, then pointedly ignoring all their evidence and responses as you blatantly make stuff up yourself! Really, you hardly deserve a response or a reading of your garbage when it lies from line one. Your title is an apt description of your own response: it's all utter malicious nonsense.

    They give good reasons for not naming names (it's second hand stuff and they don't want a witch hunt but real evidence), and are working on multiple solutions, but you just say they're saying the exact opposite of what they're actually saying and accuse them of being memory manufacturing manipulative sociopaths.

    You've managed to be more hypocritical than I think I've ever seen a person be in most of my relatively short life, and I grew up with fundamentalist Christians. It's pretty much horrifying how obtuse you are, and I lose a significant portion of my trust in the basic intelligence and self-awareness of humanity when I read self-righteous and dogmatic drivel like yours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "ignoring all their evidence" What evidence? Please tell me. I've been looking for this since the start. And what did I make up?

      Delete
    2. You claim they're starting a witch hunt with zero evidence, their writings pretty specifically say the witch hunt is a bad idea. So you're wrong from the first sentence which sets up the entire post, ignoring the written evidence that they obviously want no such thing.

      You've also ignored all the other people in that FTB thread talking about other problems, so I expect you'll ignore me too, as I already SAID the witch hunt thing you apparently ignored. I won't waste my time any further.

      I can tell you're delusional and self-righteous to the point of pure foolishness by your posts, though, so I suppose it's par for the course. Fucking Christ, you're annoyingly blinded to basic facts.

      Delete
    3. The witch hunt is my opinion, not everyone's opinion, and it refers to the collection of anecdotes that Zvan in her article wants to collect for the purpose of considering that evidence to show the organizers. Go read her article if you don't actually believe me.

      Delete
  16. Jen Mcreight killed a puppy in front of me, let's name her on a secret list and not let her defend herself as we don't invite her to anything.

    Maybe the weapons grade idiot will see the problem with this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your idea is wonderful, but it will go over their heads, faster than a weapons grade missile. :)

      Delete
  17. it's extremely hypocritical to complain about people minimizing violence because they refer to something as a "witchhunt", when many of you compare the republican's opinions as a "war on women". newsflash, people die in wars. they are shot, stabbed, raped, burned, gassed, and all other horrible things. how many women have been murdered by the republican party, may I ask? and no, I'm not republican, but you people are so hypocritical it's beyond parody. I also have to point out how you frame witchhunts as purely victimising women when, historically, about a third of the victims were men! way to minimize violence, you people don't even educate yourselves about violence properly. you're so obsessed with feeling victimized that you block out and minimize violence that doesn't support your persecution complexes by cognitively distorting reality to fit your worldview, and then wonder why so many people have a problem with you. I mean, people's perceptions that you are hypocrites couldn't possibly be caused by any of your own actions, right? These people clearly just don't understand you, right? right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure how you missed it, but all the witches wrongly hunted in my article are all male ones. I'm defending them and NOT their feminist over-reacting accusers. Them, I'm exposing, and disputing and debating with. The rest of your comment confuses me, but I think I got what you're saying about a third of men though.

      Delete
  18. This comments section is hilarious. I particularly love this snippet in the article itself:

    "3. Don’t let women speakers have only nominal representation. The more of them there are in a venue, the fewer spaces there are for ugly behavior."

    Ah, yes. Only men, you see, are capable of ugly behaviour. With more of the bastions of morality that are women, it simply will cease to be.

    Neither of these women have provided no proof of this type of behaviour happening, but even worse, they can't even be bothered to give us anecdotes, and when pressed for this, they hide behind a controversy that ended up with the person of contention telling those who disagreed with her to literally go and fuck watermelons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm just still flabbergasted that more people haven't caught on yet to the obvious misandry in her statement. I was shocked that she wrote it, but I shouldn't be. They are far more insane and radfemmy then people realize.

      Delete
  19. Scented Nectar - I see the idiots from FtB have arrived. Nothing like being savaged by a flock of dead sheep, eh...? ;)

    This is the smoking gun. Zvan making it clear that she has (or had) no problem with conference organizers taking steps to find out who was on "the List".

    --------------------------------

    Q: So who are these guys?

    A: I’m not going to tell you that, AT LEAST NOT HERE.

    Q: I arrange speakers for XYZ. This is important information for me.

    A: That is a very good point. I RECOMMEND NETWORKING BEHIND THE SCENES. Nobody wants events to go badly. The people to ask are usually female conference organizers and speakers. Those who speak publicly about sexism hear more stories from other people.

    --------------------------------

    And those sentiments are a fucking disgrace (because it's entirely possible the "accused" will not only have no chance to respond to any accusations, but won't even know there are accusations). Happily, she seems to have shifted (somewhat) from that position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dead sheep don't savage(or do) anything. Your metaphor is bad and you should feel bad.

      For that matter, live sheep don't savage anything either. This is why people use them to imply timidness, as you did in one half of your mixed metaphor

      Delete
    2. The FfTBers have been keeping me entertained here. I've really got to get some sleep though and come back her tomorrow. My eyes are hanging at half mast, refusing to even feign wakefulness. :)

      Delete
    3. Anonymous - Oh dear. You're clearly not a scholar of British political history. The "dead sheep" thing is an allusion. Google is your friend.

      Oh, and you should feel bad. ;)

      Delete
  20. I saw Goody Nectar consorting with the Devil!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You better ask the priests to add me to the next witch dunking, or burning, whatever the local custom here is fine by me. But let me have one more night with Satan, ok? I'll turn myself in in the morning. :)

      Delete
  21. Oh oh, Ms Nectar, youve been buzzing around the hornets nest with this topic, havent you? Well, let the required action be appropriate to the claim being presented. An unspecified number of people, who do not have names, have alleged vague unspecified (sexual?) wrongdoings against themselves or unpecified victims, perpetrated by atheist speakers, who also do not have names (but the wrong-doers are all male, and the wrong-doees are all female. That much is 100000000000000% absolute certain fact)

    Im so enraged by this, Im going to have some lunch, do some gardening, maybe having an afternoon nap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you have perfectly and succinctly shown all the facts of this matter, helping to also show clearly what are NOT the facts of this matter! :)

      Delete
  22. Replies
    1. How do you define classy? Hard to tell from your 2 word anonymous comment.

      Delete
  23. With respect to this point in your post:

    "They don't want to confront or tell the allegedly offending person that they've done something wrong. That person is assumed to know they've committed a horrible sexism, and likely did it on purpose due to being a sexist man. Often the story is that they are afraid to confront men, and rather than see that as a trait to get over, they act as though overcome with fear that the man might retaliate and endanger her if she dare speak up. This is their excuse as to why the accusers MUST remain anonymous and given an automatic assumption of credibility."

    Something that Stephanie Zvan wrote (and Jen McCreight quoted) was:

    "However, not only does having formal policies in place help protect your guests while this is being sorted out, but they provide a means of collecting and tracking this misbehavior. It’s much simpler to push back against pressure to include a speaker with formal tracking. It’s much simpler to share information with, “We had X number of violations of policy reported to us, and we have the records to back that up,” rather than, “So-and-so did such-and-such according to some person I can’t name.”

    The key here is that she is advocating formally tracking independent reports of harassment. People may have varying opinions on constitutes harassment (or "a horrible sexism [sic]" as you referred to it), but if someone reports feeling harassed or threatened (perhaps more-so if multiple people report it), then that is definitely worth looking into. As Jen reported "Both female friends and strangers confided in me, telling me stories of speakers that talked only to their chest, groped them against their wishes, followed them to their hotel room..." and she notes that this "...does not mean everyone who’s made a sexist comment is also making inappropriate advances" I would categorize groping and chasing someone to their hotel room as threatening behavior. When someone is feeling harassed it's usually more than just being offended, they also likely feel threatened. It's not unreasonable that they wouldn't want to confront the accused person on their own. By having a clear policy and keeping a record of these reports, it would allow organizers to have a conversation with the offending person and outline which behaviors are being reported. This would allow them to "...examine any claims to see if the alleged bad behaviour really is bad or not, and if so, how bad." If the accused truly was not aware they were making others feel harassed, maybe they will change the offending behavior. It would also give them a chance to defend themselves. I think that both men and women can exhibit inappropriate behaviors, and I don't think that this is a feminist "witchhunt" against men.

    Everyone deserves to feel safe at a conference and this may be one way to work towards that goal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell me something. You are talking about situations that are crimes. Did none of these women think of the other women out there? Why did no one call the police, so he could be stopped before hurting another woman?!?!?

      I'm going to tell you what I would also tell the catholic church. If an actual sexual abuse happens, CALL THE POLICE TO DEAL WITH IT. Do not call the pope/event organizers, and ask them to deal with it. Call the fucking police! If a waiter diddles your child in the washroom, do you call the head chef to complain? No! You call the police! What the fuck, people!

      And don't go on about how the police won't believe it without evidence. No one should. Are you hoping that the imposed new rules will give automatic assumed credibility to any woman who claims victimhood? That's idiotic and wrought with problems.

      And to any women who are so paranoid of the men at conferences, and constantly on the lookout for sexism, carry a fucking camera and mike. Wire yourself. Then we can all see what you are talking about and determine whether or not you're over-reacting or did something bad really happen.

      Delete
    2. In the case of sexual abuse, I would agree that the victim should contact the police. However, I also expect that conference organizers would deal with the situation as well.
      In response to "Why did no one call the police, so he could be stopped before hurting another woman?!?!?", hopefully they did. Why do you assume that they wouldn't report to both?

      If you've ever gone to university or worked for a large organization, they likely had a sexual harrassment policy. Why do you have such a problem with this type of policy? And don't go on about how those policies are only for teacher-student situations or people in positions of power. They usually refer to situations between colleagues as well. You may argue that there is nothing to worry about in terms financial or academic harm from a conference, but also consider this type of statement from an example of one of these policies (found here - http://tinyurl.com/bt34wbs):

      " 3. such behavior is so severe, persistent, or pervasive that a reasonable person would find that it...
      b)unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work or performance in a course, program, or activity, thus creating a hostile or abusive working or educational environment." Also note the examples of sexual harassment at that link (e.g. "•repeatedly using sexually degrading words or sounds to describe a person" or "recurring comments or questions about an individual’s sexual prowess, sexual deficiencies, or sexual behavior") If there are several reports about an individual over a period of time, particularly if they were already spoken to about it, I would consider that to be persistant behavior. While it's not necessarily an educational environment, if the harassment causes someone to skip talks or events they would have otherwise attended, I think that is impacting their ability to learn and participate.

      I'm just using that example to illustrate how an organization would step in to investigate these types of occurences. I'm certainly not saying that every point in those types of policies relate to a conference scenario. However, I do think an organization should take on some level of responsiblity to make all participants feel welcome and safe.

      People shouldn't have to "carry a fucking camera and mike" in case someone harasses them. Why do you automatically assume that most of the reports WON'T be credible? Collecting these reports close to the time of the incident may even make them more accurate because it would be less likely that details would be forgotten or exaggerated over time.

      Delete
    3. But think of who is going to be the arbiter of the "reasonable person would find" etc. The femtheists misinterpret things all the time, declaring sexism everywhere and anywhere, often where there is no real sexism at all.

      Instead of hanging out with friends and being normal, conferences with too many paranoid rules would be like trying to use a computer with some sort of Net Nanny, or one that changes all attempts to write cock into cook, refusing to let bad adult words be seen by myself, an adult. If one is older than 18, it's downright insulting to be in such a whitebread, goodietwoshoes, child-safe environment.

      Last year the femtheists convinced a couple of events to add a rule, listed as a form of harassment, any uninvited talk about sex. Well, since the invitation itself would break the rules, I guess that's no sex talk whatsoever.

      These are adult events. I would never trust the radfems to control the sexuality of normal people. They much too frequently call behaviour sexist that is not sexist at all.

      Delete
    4. One of the examples of sexual harassment there is:
      sexual advances, sexual propositions, or sexual demands which are not agreeable to the recipient There's the subjectivity element. Elevatorgate anyone?
      On top this subjectivity, colleges are apparently supposed to adhere to a lower standard of evidence, as of late. (xref: the Caleb Warner case I mentioned in an earlier comment) By the lowered evidence standards of FFTB, Dawkins at al are already guilty, and us ERVites are hardcore misogynists. Now, what kind of policy would you expect from these hysterics?

      http://thefire.org/article/13142.html
      A. Standard of Proof
      OCR's April 4 letter mandates that colleges and universities receiving federal assistance must employ a "preponderance of the evidence" standard within their grievance procedures governing sexual harassment and sexual violence in order to satisfy their legal obligations under Title IX. Specifically, the April 4 letter dictates:
      ...[I]n order for a school's grievance procedures to be consistent with Title IX standards, the school must use a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e., it is more likely than not that sexual harassment or violence occurred). The "clear and convincing" standard (i.e., it is highly probable or reasonably certain that the sexual harassment or violence occurred), currently used by some schools, is a higher standard of proof. Grievance procedures that use this higher standard are inconsistent with the standard of proof established for violations of the civil rights laws, and are thus not equitable under Title IX. Therefore, preponderance of the evidence is the appropriate standard for investigating allegations of sexual harassment or violence.

      Delete
  24. Seriously?, I mean, SERIOUSLY?
    You SO fail at feminism and solidarity with other women it's incredible. Your "so what it was only a joke" excuse is SUCH a fail. What if I called you a stupid, ugly slut somewhere in public and said "tsss don't be angry, it was just a joke?!"

    Fact is that harassment against women happens A LOT FAR MORE OFTEN than false accusations against men. Go and educate youself before you use terms as "crybaby accusers" etc. Terms like these are a verbal slap in the face against every women that has experienced harassment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oppression Olympics, who's winning this year? Oh wait I forgot it only matters if you're losing, thats right.

      Delete
    2. Call me whateverthefuck you want. What is it you think that will do to me? Hint: nothing.

      Define harassment (legal official definition, not your own made up one) before we go further into this. Then I will know which stats to ask you for that convinced you of your claim that (real?)harassment happens more than false accusations.

      Or don't bother, since it doesn't matter. You don't seem to get that because real ones, and false ones, and incorrect ones (where she incorrectly thinks something innocent is really a harassment), ALL exist, there needs to be legal definitions and fairness in determining things in ALL those cases.

      I don't buy the feminist bullshit that all women who make a claim of sexism MUST be believed, because to deny her that reminds them of some cases they thought were real, that weren't believed. The solution is fair trial, not to switch over to believe all by default and don't even try the man.

      If an actual crime happens on event grounds, and they do not go to the police but 'deal' with it themselves, they are just as bad as the catholic church who also protects their bad guys from police examination by not reporting crimes.

      And if it's something that is not even a crime, here's something novel: Don't pretend you were harassed or assaulted if it wouldn't even fit the legal definitions of that. You can still say you dislike, or feel awkward around, or whatever, but don't make it out to be a crime.

      Delete
    3. "You SO fail at feminism and solidarity with other women it's incredible."

      You SO fail at feminism if you think it's solidarity with other women. Here I was thinking feminism had some basis of principle beyond schoolyard tribalism. How's your solidarity with that famous (self-styled) feminist Sarah Palin?

      Delete
    4. Feminism in practice IS solidarity with other women who work towards the hidden goals of the movement.. i.e towards increase in female power. My experience isnt vast, but I havent come across even a single feminist organization in the real world, OR a card-carrying feminist's blog (e.g valenti, marcotte) that can be considered egalitarian. If you can point me to one, I will be grateful. In the interests of full disclosure, I am an MRA.
      I dont see feminists having worked for lessening even one of their privileges (for e.g courtship process where women do the approaching/proposing roughly half the time, women taking up jobs in the death professions, working for shared parenting etc). None. Take a look at the Red Stockings Manifesto from 1969. It describes the behaviour of modern feminism to a tee.
      V We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation. We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all products of male supremacist culture. We question every generalization and accept none that are not confirmed by our experience.
      Fuck evidence.. feelings are what matters. Note how this goes against all that science teaches us?? i.e how our brain is fooled by illusions such as flat earth, geo-centric universe because everything seems to go around us in the sky, intersecting rail tracks, etc. Given this, it doesnt surprise me
      that female feminists dont give a fuck for what the rest of us consider evidence.

      Delete
    5. A year or two ago on youtube, I saw a modern day feminist say that science was a male plot and too distrust scientific concepts like evidence, methodology etc. She said they are just methods by which the patriarchy lies to women. Totally illogical.

      Delete
  25. They're used to acting upon a lack of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think they even understand what evidence is. They have an astounding lack of logic and comprehension.

      Delete
  26. SN, thank goodness that I've found someone who get's this. I remember the contemptible attempt to blacklist Richard Dawkins, someone who does more for atheism in a week than this riff-raff do in their pointless live, because he wasn't buying Rebecca Watson's guff.


    Look, basically there are real skeptics, and there are pseudo-skeptics. How can you tell the latter? Well, they have a great need to remind everyone of how skeptical they are, they even name their communites "freethoughtblogs" just so everyone knows how Open Minded and Rational and Skeptical they are (I mean, if we looked at their record we might, possibly, get a different idea).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some of us have renamed it for accuracy's sake to FreefromThoughtBlogs. :)

      That really pissed me off how they vilified Dawkins last year. I'm still angry about it. He's one of the ones in this current group they are accusing people within, since he is in the subset of public speakers who have already been publicly accused of sexism in the past. It's possible that he's one of the people they are trying to fuck over again now with this new shit. :(

      Delete
  27. Replies
    1. Your one word comment lacks meaning, probably because it lacks neighbouring words. I don't know who you are calling a traitor, nor a traitor to what? Try again please?

      Delete
    2. I do have to wonder why the original comment included the words "young and pretty". Was it just a vanity comment, in which case it's hard to see any justification in complaining about Abbie's response, or is this kind of aggressive sexual behavior specifically directed at the young and pretty, such that less attractive women at secular conferences, or those who are a little older (what would count as not young, over 30 perhaps?)

      Delete
  28. "they know if they show any anonymously authored anecdotes and claim that that is evidence, they'll be laughed at and thought of as idiots. "

    If only. I'm sorry to say that, no matter how benign the supposed incidents turn out to be, there will always be a crowd of shocked and outraged torch and pitchfork waving believers. You see, it's not about the incident, it's about the supposed victims - that's what's driving everyone. If a seemingly helpless victim cries, everyone must spring to action - regardless of the cause.
    In fact, why doesn't someone try, for the sake of experiment, and see how absurd of a sexual harassment claim they can come up with and have it taken seriously? "He ignored my smile - that's sexual negligence".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They would twist that to them being the victim too. :)

      Delete
  29. Imagine this hypothetical scenario:
    Girl feels a hand on her ass and turns around to see a guy walking away behind her. Was it an accident? Did someone bump into him causing him to accidentally touch her? Well, who knows, this stuff happens in crowded places.
    Next day she's talking to another woman and guess what, "that happened to you as well? The same guy?" they ask half a dozen more women and what seemed to be an accident turns out to be anything but.

    Time to call the cops and have this guy arrested, right?

    Right ...

    Who do you talk to when that's happened? How do you go about dealing with a guy like that?
    How do you deal with that kind of guy when he's one of the main speakers of the event?

    That's right, you don't do anything, because if you did anything else, you'd be a panicky hysterical overly sensituve crybaby who goes around accusing innocent men with crimes you have no evidence for, in a petty attempt to seek vengeance against this person because ... wait, why exactly are you seeking revenge against someone who'se supposedly done nothing to you?

    As the saying goes, once is an accident, twice is coincidence, but three times is a strong indication of a deliberate pattern. There has to be a better way to deal with this kind of unwanted behaviour other than kneeing the jerk in the 'nads ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are a lot of grey areas that I do not think are safely left in the hands of radfems to decide.

      Delete
  30. These people need their toys taken away from them.
    Case in point, the proposed ban on sex at conventions that McCreight
    talks of is fully based on their simplistic and problematical analysis of "power differentials".

    Basically take the worst of American sexual harassment law and apply it to conventions. That's what they want. Relatively simple and open anti-harassment policies are one thing, policies based on problematical gender-based assumptions (only men harass that sort of thing) are another.

    You are correct , SN that the underlying PHILOSOPHY behind these kinds of proposed policy changes is a radfem not a liberal feminist one. And you can bet that while paying lip service to "improvements" the FIRST thing these people are going to try to do is push any newly-created policy farther along that redfem path. And fairness? Note how they act as if they've solved the problem of false accusations when in fact they NEVER actually deal with it. To them it's always a lesser evil or something that happens so rarely that it can be ignored.

    Well, there is one way to deal with this kind of thing: Some of the larger conventions have to specifically set up VERY CLEAR policies on this stuff (beyond the zero tolerance he-leered-at-you bullshit) and also make known that certain topics - hell, ALL topics are allowed to be questioned. In short promote a general skeptical philosophy versus even the radfem claims. In my opinion most of the big names and most of the provocative names would be drawn to such a place and most of the radfems would stay away, THUS marginalizing themselves. They want a church as you've repeatedly pointed out, and that is not what skepticism is supposed to be about.

    Anyway, a personal question:
    As a former radfem how do you feel about just how much the "personal is political" has been embraced unquestionably by the countries USA, Canada, and Great Britain over the past 30 years? Did you ever, in your wildest dreams , think it would be so easy?

    Clarence *same one who has written you here before*

    ReplyDelete
  31. Clarence! :)

    I'm very curious to see the new anti-sexual-whatever rules they come up with. And to see which of the events will stupidly agree with it.

    It's hard to answer that question. It's always seemed to me that the phrase can have far too many different meanings for everyone. It has no logical meaning at all to me. I don't get the profoundness that it's supposed to have. I've concluded that it must be a Deepity

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By "the personal is political" I primarily mean the political/philosophical quest to interfere, usually via the coercive means of the state, a person's private sexual and familial life.

      Yes, "domestic violence" was a problem. So much so that we've basically :
      A. Removed due process protections (via the "protective order" civil law )from accused abusers
      B. Widened definitions of abuse so broadly that they include such things as slamming doors
      C. Set up a shelter system involving billions of dollars and probably over a hundred dedicated shelters in the US -pretty much all of which serve women only in terms of housing them, though some will do hotel vouchers for abused men
      D. Passed special laws such as "primary aggressor" statutes and "must arrest" policies. We can see how that worked out with Sheriff Mirkirimi in San Francisco
      E. Accepted a radfem framing of the problem as being unquestionably true not only as in scope but in motivations and prognosis for treatment.

      This is one example of taking a real issue and making it argaubly worse. No no family may exist but at the sufference of the government, and the private sphere -which once guarded against governmental intrusions in some ways -shrinks. This is a recipe for tyranny regardless of whether its done by government or by private actors. Watching what they've done to a family over something very minor nearly breaks my heart.

      Here: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/iteam&id=8674712

      Isn't it nice, SN that we feel comfortable telling you, a grown woman, how you may interact with other members in any family you may have because of something trivial? How's that lack of agency that feminism has brought you worked out for you?

      Anyway, the same poison is behind this sexual harassment at conventions bullshit. It's not about actually SOLVING the problem - such as it is (and we both agree that we don't even know what these assholes would consider an "issue" or how big in magnitude the issue is since they haven't defined their terminology) - it's about imposing an ideology to both define the problem and define the solution. These people are sick, and listening to them will only ruin any "skeptics" movement there may be.

      Clarence

      Delete
    2. The laws on domestic violence are terribly one sided. There's the automatic assumption that female=victim and male=violator/abuser. There are no checks in place for weeding out revenge-reporting (false ones), there are no (or rare) shelters for men who've been abused. And that lack of agency doesn't even let women speak as a self directed adults who can decide for ourselves if we need help or not. The default now, would have a man who's been abused, arrested despite being the victim since the law says the man MUST be arrested, and told he can't go home tonight even if they let him out of jail he's homeless that night, while she gets the house for herself. If a woman is abused, the man is arrested/homeless-for-a-night without needing any evidence, and she gets the house all to herself that night. And if they just have a noisy, but harmless tiff, and the neighbours call the police, and they both tell the police there is no problem here that needs their help, once again, he gets arrested, and she gets the house to herself.

      What's wrong with this picture?

      Delete
  32. It strikes me as an obvious point though seldom commented upon that the personal being political is very dangerous. If you are a fruit loop you politics will inevitably be the same.

    Bearing that in mind, spend some time on FtB, and then consider the idiot, pained exclusion displayed by the window licking authors and their followers. Just laugh at them, they are inconsequential failures in life and always will be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Laughs, at least the FreefromThoughtBloggers are good for something! :)

      Delete
  33. I think your insulting other women purely because of their appearance is petty, juvenile, and reflects poorly on the atheist movement.

    And before you ask, YES I did read the article, and yes, I do agree with what you said in it. This kind of unsubstantiated blacklist is horrible and inexcusable.

    But that has nothing to do with the statements that you made in the comments section.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's fine. I can accept that you find the joke offensive. I have a much cruder and ruder sense of humour than most people. Also, I appreciate that you can see the joke and the article as separate things.

      Delete
    2. No it doesnt reflect poorly on the atheist movement. If you are to consistently drag each and every aspect of a person's behavior onto the movement, then PZ has already killed it.
      Also, since you find this one joke in the comments section offensive, have you paid attention to how many jokes are had at men's expense in the mainstream media WHILE no such jokes are made against women and IF any are made, then they are immediately called misogyny?
      Here.. have a helping of the WHOLE series when you get some time..
      Misandry in the Media (Part 1)

      Delete
  34. Nectar, you and ERV really crack me up sometimes.

    Now, I'm off to read Jen and Zvan. Some reason, I don't expect the same level of amusement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Johann! I've been following your adventures. :)

      Have fun at those um, humour disabled blogs. Well, as much fun as possible in such places. :)

      Delete
    2. Christ, now I have a headache. Wish I had a joint to smoke. How can so many people be so fucking stupid?

      Why am I getting so riled up about these idiots? Fuck it, I'm going to bed.

      Delete
    3. I don't get it. It horrifies me that there could be many people out there, who look perfectly normal on the outside, but who are really that stupid.

      Hope your headache goes away and you get some nice bud to smoke.

      Delete
  35. As a side note:

    IANAL, but it is my impression that the whole purpose of reporting incidents of harassment that do not, by themselves, rise to the level of "sexual harassment", is to establish a *pattern* of such behavior.

    So, if 4 or 5 people at a given company, say, report that Employee X was making rude remarks about them, or 4 or 5 thought that her beefcake calender made for a hostile work environment -- the company could take that into consideration before facing a lawsuit.

    No one individual act there is enough "evidence" for a company to terminate. Only the pattern is.

    Now, conventions are even more vulnerable to this (side note: I've worked on SF conventions for many years) because they're so short. Say harasser X harasses 1-2 people per year. It's still harassment. It's still a problem. But unless they come back, year after year, and repeat the pattern, it will *never* rise to the level of evidence you want, because it's always one person's story -- and we've seen ample evidence recently of how a single reporter is treated.

    And if the harasser is a high-profile figure, who travels to lots of conventions and doesn't often repeat them (as is the case in the SF world for lots of people)? Then it's well-nigh impossible, since unless people trade stories (or assemble, as you are so fond of calling it, a List), no one will know what's a pattern, and what isn't.

    Your call for evidence, for immediate denunciation and presentation of fact, might work if we were accusing people of repeated, provably criminal acts each time. A pattern of making people highly uncomfortable by your actions, or making them feel threatened? Not a chance it'll work, and, indeed, your efforts seem designed to, well, sweep it under the rug.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They called it a List first. Don't look at me for that.

      Using your no-evidence system causes false/exaggerated/mistaken claims galore. You know why? There are no checks in place to keep that system safe from abuse.

      You want things to be considered crimes that are not usually considered crimes. I think that's why you wouldn't want the police involved. Your above spiel was excuses for the real reason. That's what I think.

      Just as no one has the right not to be offended, the same goes with feeling uncomfortable/awkward or threatened (when no threat has really happened like in ElevatorGate). Now, if someone actually does REAL harassment or assault, that's a different story, but it should at least pass the muster of also being defined so under the law.

      Delete
    2. Using your no-evidence system causes false/exaggerated/mistaken claims galore.

      I find it interesting that a person's testimony "This happened" is called non-evidence. Pray tell, do we require full-bore surveillance to allow any testimony to be considered?

      If five people came up to me at a convention* and said 'This person's acting really weird...we should watch them' -- and I knew all five people, and had trustworthy interactions with them before -- is that "no evidence"?

      There are no checks in place to keep that system safe from abuse.

      No system is "safe from abuse". None. The question is "who is abusing it, why, and how can we minimize the consequences of said abuse". You want to put all the risks on the side of the victim, save in the case of something so blatant that law enforcement becomes involved, and can acquire a conviction.

      the same goes with feeling uncomfortable/awkward or threatened

      Actually, if you look up the classic definition of "assault", it does indeed *precisely* involve the "apprehension of violence". Causing another person to feel threatened, when done deliberately, is an assault.

      I notice that you have completely ignored my larger point about the establishment of a pattern, in cases of sub-criminal behavior, and how this is very hard to do in temporally and spatially distributed environments like conventions. Care to comment on your solution to that, or does it remain "If it's not bad enough to call the cops and get a conviction, you can't do anything about it?"

      Delete
    3. Apparently, those are "grey areas" that should not be left in the hands of the "radfems".

      Unfortunately though, it seems like the "radfems" are currently the only ones perceiving this as a problem, with a willingness to pick up the unpleasant task of compiling such a "List" of serial offenders. But in her shortsightedness, Scented Nectar is convinced that this "List" will immediately be abused to ban speakers from events without even giving them a chance to defend themselves against the accusations of hysterical wolf-crying crazy lying wimmens intent on destroying their good name and their livelyhood, blah, blah, blah ...

      It's just alarmist drivel.

      I'm sure that what pisses her off even more is the fact that the people organising (or helping organise) such events (including some of the "radfems", who coincidentally appear to be much more active in the skeptical movement organisationally) and composing these kind of lists to ensure their events are pleasant for everyone attending, are unwilling to gossip about who's on that list and why. Because dammit, she's curious and she wants to hear about all the dirt. And those nasty "radfems" are doing the sensible thing and keeping things under wraps rather than destroying someone's good name because of one complaint. Goddamn bitches won't share :( !

      You can't have it both ways. And frankly there's not a single doubt in my mind that those "radfems" are going to be much more capable of correctly handling the information on that infamous "List" than Scented Nectar or ERV.
      Face it, the list already exists. Up until now, it just hadn't been penned down but got passed around from one woman to the next by word of mouth. And it will continue to do so in one form or another whether you like it or not.

      Delete
    4. Sorry, but I've seen far too many false claims by feminist. If it's not blatant enough for law enforcement, and it doesn't fall under the *legal* description of a crime, then it's time to question what the fuck you are doing acting like it is one. I see you have more of the usual excuses as to why feminist claims are above the law, but I'm not having any of it. I see through it to the unequal, chaotic situation it would likely become.

      Delete
    5. "It's just alarmist drivel." followed by "Face it, the list already exists. Up until now, it just hadn't been penned down but got passed around from one woman to the next by word of mouth. And it will continue to do so in one form or another whether you like it or not."

      So, the list is just alarmist drivel, but it is real whether I like it or not? I see. I see crazy people. :)

      Delete
    6. Sorry, but I've seen far too many false claims by feminist. If it's not blatant enough for law enforcement, and it doesn't fall under the *legal* description of a crime, then it's time to question what the fuck you are doing acting like it is one.

      If someone makes the people I want to associate with uncomfortable, by their actions, I might give them a quiet word and see if they change. If they don't, why do I have to wait until they're criminal to stop associating with them?

      You keep talking about people not having the right to not be offended -- similarly, people do not have the right to go wherever they want without the possibility of exclusion if their behavior upsets enough people.

      I see you have more of the usual excuses as to why feminist claims are above the law, but I'm not having any of it.

      Where on earth -- if you're replying to me -- did I refer to their claims as "above the law"? *outside* the standard remit of the law, perhaps, but not *above*.

      I see through it to the unequal, chaotic situation it would likely become.

      As opposed to the unequal, chaotic situation it is now? Ah, so we are better off staying where we are than risking the chance that something that might improve matters might, in fact, not.

      Gotcha.

      And I hope Anonymous doesn't mind me popping into their discussion thread, but..

      Reading comprehension fail, SN. Anonymous wrote:

      this "List" will immediately be abused to ban speakers from events without even giving them a chance to defend themselves against the accusations of hysterical wolf-crying crazy lying wimmens intent on destroying their good name and their livelyhood, blah, blah, blah ...

      It's just alarmist drivel.


      So, no, it's not:

      the list is just alarmist drivel, it's the rest of it.

      Clear?

      Delete
    7. "Clear?" In some spots, no. In others, it's clear and I disagree with you.

      Delete
    8. imnotandrei:
      We already know that your "proposed solution" (please don't make me laugh) doesn't work. The history of rape laws and sexual harrasment law in the United States already proves this.
      Despite all the laws I don't see feminists even claiming things have gotten better. Instead they just want more laws. As a victim of two false accusations in my 41 years (thankfully never of anything criminal like rape) I'm not impressed.

      Why don't you and the Witches Coven come up with something different for once? And why don't you do more than give lip service to the falsely accused?

      Clarence

      Delete
    9. Here's a site you might find interesting. Community Of The Wrongly Accused.
      http://www.cotwa.info/

      They collect news stories of cases where it's turned out that someone was wrongly accused. A little depressing to read, and shocking how frequently it has happened.

      Delete
    10. You seem to have this idea that the people organising a conference are obliged to allow everyone in.
      If they don't want to let you in, for whatever reason, I'm pretty sure they don't have to. They have a right to kick you out if they think you're ruining the event for the other attendees. Whatever their reason, they can show you to the door, refund you your ticket fee, and never let you in again. Unless their reasons for barring you are illegal forms of prejudice(i.e. race, religion, gender, etc...) there's nothing preventing them from keeping you out.

      Even from a strictly capitalistic point of view, if one paying attendee is making you lose the income of a dozen other paying attendees, you're making a poor business descision by not remedying this. It's perhaps the least compelling argument of all, but still a valid reason.

      Granted, they probably won't take steps like that unless as a last resort. But sometimes, that's the only way to handle someone who's apparently never grasped the finer points of social interaction and trying to adjust your behavior in order to get along.

      You can always make your case, but when it comes right down to it, the word of many victims will always outweigh the word of a single individual suspected of wrongdoing. And the worst that's going to happen is you'll no longer be able to attend that conference. Boohoo!
      And let's face it, something like being accused by several women of sexist or threatening behavior doesn't usually happen out of the blue either. You must've done something wrong on more than one occasion to warrant being on The List™ more than once.

      Delete
    11. How nice for you to not give a shit about the ethics or real evidence, and dumbly say "well, they can boot whoever they want anyways". And nice appeal to popularity at the end. You're so trusting.

      Delete
    12. "Clear?" In some spots, no. In others, it's clear and I disagree with you.

      Well, since you chose not to elaborate on which was which, it's clear you don't care for further discussion. I'll leave you to your folly.

      The history of rape laws and sexual harrasment law in the United States already proves this.

      And things were so much better before them? Don't make me laugh. Actually, it's not a laughing matter.

      feminists even claiming things have gotten better.

      Then you have only been talking to the ones in your head. But there's a huge difference between "better" and "good enough".

      And why don't you do more than give lip service to the falsely accused?

      You don't know what sort of treatment I give the accused. I've *been* involved in judging sexual harassment claims in communities run on feminist principles. And you know what? It always started with the attempt to make things whole by getting people together and figuring out what the problem was.

      You can complain about the straw feminists all you want -- it just indicates that you're more interested in whining than in solving problems.

      A little depressing to read, and shocking how frequently it has happened.

      It's no more depressing to read than rape statistics, to be honest.

      How nice for you to not give a shit about the ethics or real evidence,

      Pot. Kettle. Black. You refuse to acknowledge anything beyond "evidence that would ensure a conviction in a court of law" as evidence, and expect people who don't hit that level to either a) cope or b) put themselves in the position of being accused of having "no evidence" when they come forward.

      You complain at great length, but I don't see you trying to solve any problem other than "Oh, no, it's possible someone might get falsely accused! How can we stop this tragedy!"

      Delete
  36. And now there is the buffoon myers, under a title declaring that there is no blacklist, refusing to attend conferences because someone may be there who he does not like ( way to go 'professor')and producing as a result the beginnings of a blacklist.
    What a mature adult, what with banning people from commenting and crying like a baby over words far less offensive than his own, you can see why FtB has the name it does. Any one thinking it is the idiot echo chamber of the left is quite wrong!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, about that kook Myers. No blacklist, eh? Hey Myers! Someone please call him over here for a moment, will ya?

      Here's what's now a saved cut and paste for re-use, so that I don't have to type it again a hundred fucking thousand times:

      So many people are denying what they said in their first articles, now that they've done a fast re-do/change of topic to harassment rules, done in their next articles. The first articles admitted to the list:

      At the links in my article above, McCreight says "But women in the movement had formed an unofficial underground network of knowledge, making sure to warn people about who to avoid." and "After I made my comment, dozens of people kept asking me for the names on The List (which I didn’t give – see my previous points)." Over at Zvan's, she also talks about it "When organizers stop inviting some of the people on this list, unless sexism is a primary concern for donors, unless experiences are allowed to be made public, organizers get overruled."

      But there is no list and we are not at war with Eurasia, never have been.

      Delete
    2. And further to Myers' promise to run away from anywhere Abbie is at, he timed it well. Only last week, I think it was, that she was saying that travelling and speaking were not in her plans. So, it's nice and safe for him to make that threat, knowing that he won't really ever have to do it.

      Delete
  37. Pro-tip: A list requires more then one individual.

    A blacklist requires a list of person under censure or what have you. Typically circulated privately among individuals/employers/conference organizers.

    What Myers is doing is not a black list. It is a deceleration of his individual choice. The fact that he happens to have more influence then others does not truly enter into it, as he is not the one that organizes conferences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who said Myers is doing the list? It's mostly Zvan who is all pumped up about collecting many, many anecdotes and then using the collected names of the accused to convince event organizers not to hire those men.

      Maybe you've got this confused with his child-like refusal to be in the same room as Abbie.

      Delete
  38. Yes, I am new here. Came over from FTB. So you can now ignore whatever I have to say...

    I did read your whole article, painful though it was. You make a variety of claims without evidence. You seem to be driven by some strong prejudices against those you criticize. And you try to excuse your ad hominems as "just joking".

    As far as I have seen no one is calling for the creation of some secret blacklist, at least not any more than naturally exists anyway*. The main outcome of the whole dust up seems to be that more (most) conference organizers will be adopting anti-harrassment policies. This seems to me to be a good thing.

    To aid you in ignoring what I have to say I will have to admit that I haven't the time nor patience to go into any more detail than this. Like detailing a bad design, I find the work physically painful and won't do it for less than full fees.

    * I have attended many professional conferences and they all have their unofficial creeps list.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sad to hear that you have the usual FfTB low self esteem and are demanding ignoring. And it's weird that the first thing you say assumes the worst of me right off the bat, that I'll ignore you.

      The article had no ad homs. Insults were NOT used to replace real arguments. Or, are you confusing the article with the comments, where some jokes happened, and which would have been considered ad homs had they been used in place of a real argument?

      And that list. You people have a very short memory. The list was started and Zvan's original plan by was to use it to tell organizers who not to hire. Then, they switched topics over to making their anti-harassment replacement legal system.

      Just because PZ says there is no list and that we're not fighting with Eurasia, doesn't mean it's true. Here's the proof that the list exists, or at least existed:

      So many people are denying what they said in their first articles, now that they've done a fast re-do/change of topic to harassment rules, done in their next articles. The first articles admitted to the list:

      At the links in my article above, McCreight says "But women in the movement had formed an unofficial underground network of knowledge, making sure to warn people about who to avoid." and "After I made my comment, dozens of people kept asking me for the names on The List (which I didn’t give – see my previous points)." Over at Zvan's, she also talks about it "When organizers stop inviting some of the people on this list, unless sexism is a primary concern for donors, unless experiences are allowed to be made public, organizers get overruled."

      Ok? Now no more nonsense about the list never existing.

      And some advice, although you might feel somewhat traitorous doing it, examine things that PZ tells you in the same manner as if a creationist or politician had told it to you. Scrutinize, ask questions, especially question the assumed to be true parts. Don't avoid scrutinizing topics that are sensitive among PZ or the commentors in fear of them getting upset. If PZ is an upright fellow, then he'll pass with flying colours. Right?

      Delete
    2. I have a list.
      There! I've said it.

      But wait, it's not a blacklist though, it's a white paper list written in green ink containing various items I need to bring home from the supermarket.

      But it's a list, right? You heard me confess it right here!!

      Delete
    3. Aha! Another admission of the list's existence.

      Hello conference organizers? I've got some more names for you. Here they are: Butter, Milk, Eggs, Lettuce, Tomatoes.... :D

      Delete
  39. I am pretty shocked at your immaturity.

    If you're such a skeptic, you would hold your horses until it pans out and see whether this really is a problem, rather than just name-calling and automatically blasting the 'radfems.' You seem to need a dose of humble pie, instead of automatically yelling at the group you 'obviously' hate. And please, make your writing less childish by not exaggerating by calling this a 'witch hunt' and also, calling people ugly and laughing your ass off like a 4 year old. You claimed 'joke' but it was retarded. If you put some thought into this, instead of jumping on a bandwagon going in the opposite direction of again, the cause you are already known to be against, maybe you could learn a little. Be more open minded, for fuck's sake. I read your post, and was wondering if you actually had some valid points. And then I read Zvan's post. And it was extremely well-reasoned, mature, and honestly showed some care and thought about a tough situation. You blew it completely out of proportion, SN. You are using your grudge to muddy your thinking capacities, which is exactly what you are accusing the others of doing.

    And yes, I read your post. Every word of it, and every word of the comments and every word of your enemy's posts and comments.

    Grow up. I'm not impressed. Sad day, because I thought I found another logical, reasoning, skeptic freethinker's blog. I was wrong. You're just mad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. @AnonymousMay 24, 2012 11:06 PM

      "You claimed 'joke' but it was retarded".

      You were doing well till blew it with this manifestation of ingrained ableism.

      Delete
    3. Anony, first of all, fuck off with telling me what and when I should write. No one is forcing you to come here, much less read anything.

      Second of all, are you daft??? The horse was let out of the barn by McCreight, and then Zvan, and others.

      Thirdly, tone trolling has no effect on me. And that's the only substance in your comment. Did you argue any topical points? No. Did you give an opinion of what each side's tone is? Yes.

      Try again. Or don't.

      Delete
  40. LOL!
    I love how this works.
    Christian blogs have fights over who is a true Christian or is more Christian or whatever. Really, such things are impossible to solve because no one agrees what the religious text they worship means or meant and you can't make direct appeals to evidence.

    Atheist/skeptical blogs have fights over who is more logical , skeptical, etc. Up to a point, it's the same thing.
    But there's a difference here.
    Some blogs ban/censor/ have an official party line.
    That includes the vast majority of the so-called "free thought" bloggers of which Zvan is one.
    This blog is not like that and can really lay claim to the title.
    Anyone who follows the Official Church of Feminsm can't lay claim to the title of "skeptic".
    Of course that includes PJ Meyers and his little band of sycophants.

    Anyway "anonymous", I'm not impressed with your non-existent argument. Without OPEN evidence you can't even establish that there is a problem, you stupid, intellectually dishonest dipshit. SN at least lays bare her arguments for all to see.

    Clarence

    ReplyDelete
  41. imnotandrei:

    First off, I was falsely accused twice. Luckily, for me, it only resulted in the loss of one job I wanted to keep, the other was a temp job. That you ignore that and call me a whiner really means I have no reason to dialogue with you. After all, you couldn't be bothered to show the empathy you demand for your hypothetical anonymous female victims when a male victim is standing right in front of you, so fuck you, and fuck anonymous hypothetical victims.

    See here's the thing, you stupid asshole. I can sympathize and empathize with victims of all sexes and of all types. I've had someone in my own family who was raped and not the ridiculous "I can't remember if I said Yes" type of bullshit rape either. I've experienced the false accusations as well as assaults. Protecting men and women from sexual assaults is important to me and if I was to magically become Dictator for Life , I'd hardly start closing shelters.

    You and your crew on the other hand, specifically withhold concern from males. Occasionally you'll pay lip service to male victims of sexual assault - but even then you only focus on prison rape so as to blame men more- but hardly any of you pricks (male feminists) and cunts /witches (typical victim or rad fems) pay even lip service to victims of false accusations.

    I'm not interested in being a casualty of your ideology and none of you have proven to be capable of responsibly and fairly weilding power, so as much as I can I'm going to try to marginalize you and every single concern you have -unless it is a concern I agree should be a concern - and you will have no one but yourselves to blame. I don't want to dialogue with ideologues who deny my existence and are so stupid they constantly empower others to fight overblown problems at the expense of fundamental rights and freedoms. Right now I'm cautiously optimistic about the Skeptic community. Bring on the battle, asshole.

    Clarence

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After all, you couldn't be bothered to show the empathy you demand for your hypothetical anonymous female victims when a male victim is standing right in front of you, so fuck you, and fuck anonymous hypothetical victims.

      I do apologize -- I missed the "two false accusations" the first time I read it through.

      That said: I know victims. I'm not going to name them. Heck. *I* am a victim of sexual harassment and assault. So, when you come back from "You didn't recognize my pain" with "fuck your anonymous hypothetical victims", I'm afraid you've just lost all your moral high ground back again.

      What I think we all want here -- though you may choose not to believe it -- is a system that minimizes harassment, minimizes false accusation, and minimizes suffering. The main argument is over which way it works.

      Protecting men and women from sexual assaults is important to me and if I was to magically become Dictator for Life , I'd hardly start closing shelters.

      I never said you would. On the other hand, all I see from you *here*, which is all I have to judge by, is "That won't work, come up with something else!" And a dismissal of people *trying* to do something different as a "witches' coven".

      Funny, I wonder why I'm not too keen to give you the benefit of the doubt.

      You and your crew on the other hand

      And here we go again -- you know almost *nothing* about me, or my "crew". And yet you feel perfectly content to push your straw feminists back up and knock them down.

      And before you go on about "denying your experience" -- remember that you're the one here who's assigning generalizations to other people. You're the one who's trying to tell me what I think and do.

      Occasionally you'll pay lip service to male victims of sexual assault - but even then you only focus on prison rape so as to blame men more-

      Funny -- I got a lot of support as a survivor from my community. Fancy that. And it had nothing to do with prison.

      but hardly any of you pricks (male feminists) and cunts /witches (typical victim or rad fems) pay even lip service to victims of false accusations.

      And with an attitude like that from you, tell me, why should I? If all I would get from you is "You're a prick, fuck off?", where's the way in?

      And you know what? When I stop looking around and realizing that I know, other than on blogs, one person who was a victim of a false accusation, and more than I can count of sexual harassment, let alone sexual assault, then I'll raise the victims of false accusation higher on my priority list. But I'm *not* going to let "Oh, no, someone might in theory be falsely accused" prevent doing *something* about the people who aren't falsely accused.

      A legal system, or a system of social control, that only does what you want is a fantasy -- and what's worse, it's a power&privilege fantasy.

      Like I said in the comment thread you replied on, I've been involved in quasi-official matters of banning or not banning people from spaces. And you know what? I've come down on both sides, depending on my judgment and the evidence.

      so as much as I can I'm going to try to marginalize you and every single concern you have -unless it is a concern I agree should be a concern -

      Ah. I see. We don't do what you want, so you're going to marginalize us and our concerns, because we don't put *your* concerns first.

      Charming.

      Bring on the battle, asshole.

      I don't need to. I think you've made it perfectly clear to anyone reading what, exactly, you are. Any marginalizing that's going to happen from this exchange is going to happen based on what we've both said.

      Delete
  42. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  43. What a silly little blog. Atheists are no more rational that religious nutters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I bet that's the end of SN's self esteem. I'm sure she's mortified at the thought that "Anonymous" calls her blog silly.

      Delete
    2. ***SOB!!!***

      Wait, no that wasn't it. Here it is: Hahahahahahahahahhahahahah! :D

      Delete
  44. I love reading the comments. You need more than one person for a list? No you do not. And then we get the claims of stupidity and immaturity. Those atheists sure are stupid in the comments section.

    On and it's not a 'movement', it's a bunch of wannabes on the Internet arguing over trivia as the world ignores you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think that anyone has yet brought up the topic of how many are on the list. All we know is that it's more than one person, based on their use of pluralization, like "names" etc.

      Delete
  45. "The femtheist view of women is of infantilized, hyper-vulnerable, hyper-sensitive, fragile people, not adults."

    Just goes to show that the feminist usually represents the far left end of the political spectrum, the far left that sees people not as individuals but as members of an imaginary collective. This is why so many feminists viciously attack women who dare to deviate from the collective's norms by, for example, appearing topless in some men's magazine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, it's pretty much a collective-based, unrealistic idealization, where they try to tell other women what is or isn't acceptable sexual behaviour, based on the radfem "almost everything = rape" rule. When the woman tells them she's consenting and wants to do it, they declare her brainwashed by the patriarchy, a victim in need of rescuing who doesn't realize it, or a gender traitor whose sole goal in life is obtaining approval from men.

      It's a nasty cult.

      Delete
    2. This is why so many feminists viciously attack women who dare to deviate from the collective's norms by, for example, appearing topless in some men's magazine.

      And why so many ran magazines like "On Our Backs"?

      I suppose I should realize that what you mean by "feminist" and what most people mean by "feminist" are two very different things.

      Delete
    3. There are different types of feminists. Some are sex-positive. Some are not. Years ago, there was a magazine called Off Our Backs that was anti-male, anti-sex, very radically feminist. I used to buy it back in the 80s when I was in the radfem cult.

      Some breakaway feminists (we would now call them sex positive or 3rd wavers) made a very pro-sex, even pro-kink to some degree, magazine called On Our Backs. They chose that name on purpose to make fun of Off Our Backs. I remember women arguing over it. I think the Toronto Women's Bookstore refused to carry it (but I might be wrong), but I know for sure that the local gay bookstore, Glad Day, carried it. The gay men were not as anti-sex as most of the lesbian feminists.

      Delete
    4. There are different types of feminists.

      I know that. (Indeed, I knew several of the staff of the revival of the magazine, and some of the original folks)

      Much of the commentariat here that agrees with you doesn't seem to get that point.

      This is part of my larger point here -- that many of the things you are railing against, and especially your commentariat are, are images of feminists from...20-30-40 years ago. And lack more than a little bit of perspective and relevance to what's going on now.

      Delete
    5. I know quite a bit about modern day feminists, and there are still many that are varying degrees of radical, anti-sex types. The extreme core of separatist ones still actually exist and have not modernized. See: Radfemspeak Exposed

      Delete