Donglegate! The unfortunate progeny of Elevatorgate.

[Coito ergo sum]

Or grabbed her hips. You forgot that one.

If you can't tell the difference between what the woman is describing at Defcon and a joke between a couple guys about dongles... or an invitation for coffee in an elevator; then you're just as bad as Rebecca and Adria.

You're probably part of the reason they're as successful as they are.

How so?

What are you on about? Of course I can tell the difference.

What's your point?

[Robert_S]

My overall point is that focusing SO much on that overreaction to an overreaction known as Donglegate; it overshadows the fact that there is genuine harassment and that can fuck up a con for a woman. Saying that she should just not go is saying that she should take an opportunity cost on account of her gender. Yeah, it's a party, but how many people go to parties in order to make connections that can advance their careers?

If there are a large number of women pissed off because of what happens at Defcon and 1 woman pissed of (or perhaps overjoyed to have an excuse to cause some drama) about overhearing a dongle joke AND we have 50 times the attention focused on the latter, then you're going to have a lot of people with a highly distorted view of what's going on.

It's like we got a city where 100 people got double bucket food poisoning but the news media focuses on one asshole who got caught putting a roach in their own desert to get out of their bill. You're going to have a distorted picture of the cleanliness of the local restaurants.

[Coito ergo sum]

My overall point is that focusing SO much on that overreaction to an overreaction known as Donglegate;

Who is focusing "SO much" on it? It was an issue that came up elsewhere -- Thunderf00t did a video on it. Various websites commented on it. I added a thread here, because it seemed arguably to be an outgrowth of the Elevatorgate incident. A natural and logical result of Elevatorgate, that is. The principle behand Adria Richard's actions are that men can't make double entendre jokes within earshot of a woman.

it overshadows the fact that there is genuine harassment and that can fuck up a con for a woman.

Sure, and when a woman reports such "genuine" harassment, then it ought to be addressed seriously. However, over and over again we get disingenuous reports of behavior or words that is NOT harassment and yet they are being claimed to be harassment -- and various factions of our movement are defending them as if they are harassment.

Worse than that -- I can respect someone's view if they say "yes a dongle joke IS harassment" - what I can't respect is someone saying -- "well, this report is bullshit, but we ought not call it like we see it because that would take away from the larger issue at hand or would minimize legitimate reports of harassment." That's bull. There are assaults, batteries, robberies and other crimes all over the country every day -- we wouldn't say "hey, don't take issue with a false report of one of those offenses being committed, because there are other instances of real crimes that do occur..." - that's what you're doing here.

Saying that she should just not go is saying that she should take an opportunity cost on account of her gender. Yeah, it's a party, but how many people go to parties in order to make connections that can advance their careers?

I don't care if she goes or not. If someone assaults or harasses her unlawfully, then she can feel free to take it up with the proprietor of the convention center, or with the legal authorities. If she wants to be free from dirty words, jokes, or someone asking her to show her tits, then she will have to adult-up and handle that shit for herself, like men do. We'd not take any of this seriously if a man complained about a dongle joke, or if a man said that someone tried to lick his tattoo or asked him to show his willy.

This isn't feminsm. It's stereotyping women as being what in the 1950's would have characterized as the weaker sex -- it's imposing a rule of "you can't say that in mixed company" -- and lumping in women and children in the same category. It's the infantilization of women.

If there are a large number of women pissed off because of what happens at Defcon and 1 woman pissed of (or perhaps overjoyed to have an excuse to cause some drama) about overhearing a dongle joke AND we have 50 times the attention focused on the latter, then you're going to have a lot of people with a highly distorted view of what's going on.

It's like we got a city where 100 people got double bucket food poisoning but the news media focuses on one asshole who got caught putting a roach in their own desert to get out of their bill. You're going to have a distorted picture of the cleanliness of the local restaurants.

The trouble with this analogy is that you haven't shown that there are 100 women getting "genuine" sexual harassment meted out upon them, for every one of these bullshit reports.

Why do you think - back to the one that "started" it all -- Elevatorgate -- why do you think Skepcherk reported the "want some coffee" incident publicly, but she has never -- to date -- made any specific allegations about being assaulted and sexually propositioned at conventions. Recall - she said that such things happened TO HER "all the time," -- assaults -- smacking her ass and such -- overt sexual propositions. She's said a couple of times that this stuff happens to her "all the time." But, she's never gone into specific allegations -- she never "named names" about the guys who physically touched her against her will. No videos about "guys don't do that - don't grab my ass [or whatever] like happened to me at the 2011 WidgetCon when so-and-so grabbed my ass..." -- nope -- she reported "care for a cup of coffee" and in detail she described when, where and how that incident happened. Why do you think she did not create a video describing when, where and how the ass grabbing she'd been regularly subjected to happened? Why do you think she never reported such incidents to conference coordinators, police, hotels or convention center security staff? Take a wild guess....

[Robert_S]

It's fucking common knowledge that a lot of sexist shit goes down at conventions. Just like it's common knowledge that high school football players tend to be privileged. It's just tedious to try to talk to you. Usually I just shake my head. I ain't the only one.

Sorry CES, but when you wanna bring this up and harp on the Skepchics and yet one peep about Stubensville, I just don't have any respect at all for your priorities. You believe what the fuck ever you like. I just hope your posting here doesn't reflect on the proportion of thoughts you put into things IRL.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's fucking common knowledge that a lot of sexist shit goes down at conventions.

No, it isn't. It's a huge, massive cluster of differences of opinion. If it was common that "sexist shit" (sexist =/= harassment, by the way), then we would see more online videos and blog articles about the serious shit that goes down, and a lot fewer reports of "dongle jokes" and "coffee invites" and "jewelry mocking" and that sort of thing.

Just like it's common knowledge that high school football players tend to be privileged. It's just tedious to try to talk to you. Usually I just shake my head. I ain't the only one.

Insulting me is just a way for you to cover for your inability to make your point and prove it.

So far, you've shown that there are examples of innocuous, minor bullshit that is being portrayed by women like the Skepchirks, Sarkoosian, Surly Lamey, et al, and that your position is "don't talk about these complaints because everybody knows there is serious sexist shit that goes down at these conventions..." But, when asked to provide examples of the serious harassment or serious "sexist shit" that you're referring to, you tell me I'm tedious and you're not the only one.

I am sure there are those who find my arguments tedious. There are also a good many that find me quite persuasive and entertaining to read. To each his or her own.

Sorry CES, but when you wanna bring this up and harp on the Skepchics and yet one peep about Stubensville, I just don't have any respect at all for your priorities.

Stubensville has nothing to do with atheist conventions, does it?

That was the case about high school boys brutally raping a girl, videotaping it, and cheering/laughing about it, right? Well, my "peep" on that has always been consistent -- it was a horrible crime and the perpetrators should rot in jail for a long, long time, if indeed they ever get out. That conduct is not only inexcusable but brutal, worse than animalistic, and horrible. Words are insufficient to convey my feelings about the horror of that incident.

Nevertheless, it really has nothing to do with what we're talking about, in terms of Elevatorgate and its progeny.

You believe what the fuck ever you like. I just hope your posting here doesn't reflect on the proportion of thoughts you put into things IRL.

Same to you. And, fuck off, too.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Last convention I went to I had no problem finding a woman to sleep with.

[Azathoth]

Yeah but you took her with you. That doesnt count

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yeah but you took her with you. That doesnt count

Safer than not taking her.

[Svartalf]

"I have a Donegal stuck in my computer."

better that than a Tyrconnell

[Robert_S]

Yep, CES you're obsessed with gender yet fail to make a comment on the biggest fucking national gender issues story of the year. It's not just you. Nobody on the forum has. I know if it starts, I'll probably end up suspended.

And wading through your sophistry is tedious tiresome and boring. Do you have a any evidence that this case is in any way linked to the Elevatorgate case or are you connecting things up to fit your pre-packaged philosophy like Exi5 used to do here?

[charlou]

RobertS, I just want to say that

Stubensville has nothing to do with atheist conventions, does it?

That was the case about high school boys brutally raping a girl, videotaping it, and cheering/laughing about it, right? Well, my "peep" on that has always been consistent -- it was a horrible crime and the perpetrators should rot in jail for a long, long time, if indeed they ever get out. That conduct is not only inexcusable but brutal, worse than animalistic, and horrible. Words are insufficient to convey my feelings about the horror of that incident.

really goes without saying, it's so damned obvious. Likewise any other such examples of assault. Just take it as read that most people anywhere abhor that behaviour.

[charlou]

That said, a person should feel able to attend a convention without being gratuitously groped, ffs. If that is happening, of course something needs to be done.

[charlou]

And to the topic at hand ... and the point of the OP as I understand it ... So long as anyone contrives to maintain a status of difference, a demand for special treatment, they hold themselves to a ransom of their own making: self-perpetuating oppression.

[Audley Strange]

Bingo!

This is exactly the point. There is a world of difference between actual sexism and exaggerating a trivial event for your own gain under the guise of sexism. The latter is a cynical tantrum tactic to get what you want by exploiting peoples emotive vulnerabilities. The reason that such events are blown out of proportion should evince that there is no other events that happen that do not need to be exaggerated.

If this is the "women speaking out" about T-Shirts and Coffee invites and "dongle" jokes, then I don't think it unreasonable to suggest that their reportage, once you cut through their ideological drama rhetoric is that the convention scene is not a hot-bed of Rape enabling misogynists but at worst clumsy nerds.

[klr]

On a not entirely unrelated note:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/04 ... men_panel/

Sci/Tech quango promises an end to 'events with no women'
Except when its own management get together

By Jasper Hamill • Get more from this author
Posted in Government, 4th April 2013 14:57 GMT

Sci-tech quango Nesta has announced a ban on all-male panels at its events in a bid to challenge the blokeyness endemic in the fields it covers.

The quango, nowadays officially a charity but one which spends lottery money on "innovation" (more here) promised to actively seek out women to chair public meetings and debates.

It claimed the initiative was just the beginning of a drive to "challenge dominant ethnic, class and disability representation in public life".

A statement from Nesta, written by Jo Casebourne and Laura Bunt, said:

Nesta has made a public commitment to end all-male panels at our events and advocate the same for events we participate in. As we host regular live events and publish videos online, we hope this will bring more diverse and representative perspectives to political and social debates and start to make events with no women speakers seem odd and anachronistic.

Tokenism? We don't think so. It's as important as ensuring that organisations' Boards are representative, and at Nesta we're glad that our Board has moved closer to gender parity.

Given the current proportions of women experts represented in public debate it may be easier to think of a man to speak or chair an event than to find a woman. Making this pledge makes it necessary to spend that extra effort to get someone different in.

The announcement comes in the wake of a book by Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg which calls for new approaches to gender in the workplace to encourage women to climb up the corporate ladder.

The UK now ranks 60th in the world in a league measuring the proportion of women in government. Just 22.5 per cent of MPs are women.

Nesta itself might be seen as having some way to go on gender equality, regardless of the makeup of its Board. Of the six positions it lists as making up its own senior management, five are held by men (in fact all six are at the moment, as the sole woman - who is rather stereotypically in charge of PR - is on maternity leave and her replacement is a man).

Nesta's top man, Sir John Chisholm, is most famous for having masterminded the selloff of most of the UK Defence R&D apparatus under the name Qinetiq. During this process he arranged a share incentive scheme under which he and his chosen inner circle were awarded 20,000 per cent returns on their personal investments: Chisholm himself pocketed more than £20m, in a process bluntly described afterwards by the parliamentary public accounts committee as "profiteering".

He's plainly regarded as a safe pair of hands in which to place public money.