A Hermit wrote:This is a good example of what I'm talking about actually; women actually were warning each other about a couple of male speakers who are notorious for hitting on their female counterparts. The "not feeling safe" comments were almost always accompanied with caveats about skeptical events being no worse than life in general, and a wish that they could actually be better than the day to day sexism many women have to put up with. No one was saying it was "rampant" just there was sometimes a problem and we should try to do better in dealing with it.
Gosh, really? That's why women speakers cancelled their plans to attend? Even though it was "no worse than life in general", they felt it wasn't safe enough to attend? Huh. Either you haven't been paying attention, or you're trying to recreate history.
Harassment policies are commonplace at all kinds of events, including the San Francisco polyamory conference Great Christina referred to in one of her posts. One has to wonder why anyone would be opposed to having a policy that says we will treat each other with respect...in fact most atheist/skeptic gatherings have adopted such policies.
And therein we see the problem. As soon as someone merely questions one aspect of a specific policy....why, they must be against having a policy at all!! You're simply one step short of calling me an MRA, misogynist, rape-apologist.
There was a lot of healthy debate over the details; I don't know about the reaction you received; maybe you can post the context so we can see for ourselves what went down (after all, if women complaining about sexual harassment should have their claims met with skepticism and demands for evidence I don;'t see why I should take your claims about being badly treated in some blogs comment section at face value....)
Crommunist started a thread on my post and the comments contain a discussion of what happened at PZ's blog. I don't go there anymore (clicks = money for people I don't support), but you can see it by Googling "crommunist gerald". It's the first hit.
But again, this isn't about me. This is about the reasons why some people have the impression that the FtB/Skepchicks group have become irrational and intolerant of serious dissent, specifically regarding feminist issues. This thread is rife with specific posts documenting that.
I'm not sure why defending Rebecca Watson is "bizzarre." What I find bizarre is the way some people think pointing out that having a stranger making drunken advances in an enclosed space at 4 in the morning might make a woman uncomfortable (especially after he sat in the bar and listened to her talk about how she disliked being sexualized at conferences) should provoke such anger and hatred.
I'm not talking about "elevatorgate". I'm talking about the "Rebecca Watson ruins everything" campaign, the blind acceptance of every accusation she makes, and the hypocrisy in reactions between thunderfoot's and RW's unauthorized access to information. If you don't see the blatant tribalism going on here, then you're obviously too caught up in it.
Yeah, I'll defend Rebecca Watson; I don't think she deserves the anger and hate directed at her, or the rape threats.
Is she immune from criticism? Beyond question? Above standards of evidence? Is holding her to the same standards we expect of everyone else indicative of someone who thinks she deserves rape threats? Why do you even feel the need to state that you don't think she deserves rape threats? Are you implying that I do?
Carrier actually listened to all the people disagreeing with him in his comments(What's that!!!!?>??? People at FtB disagreed with a blogger and weren't banished to the Gulag!!!!!???? Yes, it's true!) In the face of new ideas and reasonable disgreement he considered what they said, apologized and actually changed his mind. Isn't that what skeptics and rational thinkers are supposed to do?
Um...no. He "retracted and apologized for some of [his] actions". Did he apologize specifically for anything?
Thunderfoot was invited to FtB to blog about science and instead spent all his time there blogging about how the other bloggers there were wasting their time talking about what he called a "non-issue", refused to listen to their reasons for talking about an issue which directly affects some of them on a daily basis, got pissy with the people who had invited him to join, and so was dis-invited. No one is obligated to give a platform to someone else who is just going to use it to insult them. He's a fucking Prima Donna.
And again....another attempt at rewriting history. TF was specifically told he could blog about anything he wanted and was even encouraged to "rip into" other FtB posts. Except he didn't realize that didn't include the FtB's version of feminism.
And I'm not sure what "crazy rules" you're talking about with regard to the A+ thing. It's just the suggestion that interested atheists work together on issues like sexism, racism and social justice.
Again, look through this thread. Calls to have people monitored on other blogs, forums, and online communities with banishment for anyone who says something the A+ crowd doesn't approve of? You gonna defend that?
Why do you think asking for respectful treatment of women and other minorities is "completely irrational?" You'll have to be more specific...
You've just demonstrated my point for me...almost perfectly. I offer my impressions of recent events, but since they're not favorable to FtB/Skepchicks/A+, well then I must be against treating women and minorities respectfully!
That's
exactly what I described in my post and along you come and unwittingly become my Exhibit A. Thank you very much.
