The Civil War Within Skepticism

[Audley Strange]

For Robert. Just an example. http://skepchick.org/2012/07/ask-surly- ... with-hate/

Now it in and of itself looks like a reasonable complaint. However this quote (which she's bolded herself)...

I firmly believe we need some more leaders in this movement to make a stand and speak out publicly to enforce the message that behavior that encourages violence against women and minorities, be it rape threats or supposed jokes about rape, death or violence should not be tolerated in a rational, humanistic, secular society. We need leaders to stand with us, not sit quietly by, while we are ridiculed and threatened. But that is another story that I will probably write about later.

Do you see the problem with that? Women and Minorities. In other words everyone but the evil white man, they are excluded. She does this without a trace of irony while appealing to the very people that "don't count" to stand up and defend them. Secondly, I think personally that "threatened" is too far but I'll let it go because I cannot say whether she does feel threatened or not, but why does she think Women and Minorities need to be protected from ridicule? Well it would seem to me hypocritical of her to ask that while she is quite happy to ridicule those whom she doesn't agree with. Thirdly what behaviour is it that encourages violence against women and minorities exactly? Pappa's tasteless bullshit? How does that encourage violence against women exactly? Oh yeah rapists make rape jokes ergo those who make rape jokes are rapists? Really? That's reasoning?

She even expresses that part of her ideology clearly. "jokes about rape death or violence should not be tolerated in (her version) a rational humanistic secular society."

Why? So we can make them taboo and have people fainting in the streets at the mere thought of someone like Doug Stanhope or David Cross telling a rape joke? Should LEaving Las Vegas be banned because of the Rape scene? Should the Accused? What about South Park's howler with Lucas and Speilberg raping Indiana Jones?

In a rational humanistic secular society, people would accept thing they find tasteless or offensive as not for them, they would not suggest that their tastes are objectively correct and everyone should adhere to them.

Anyway, that's the ONLY article I've read so far. It seemed pertinent. In it we learn that she doesn't really care that the majority of people who are actually subject to real violence are 15 to 35 year old males, comments of perceived violence against women are the real issue. We learn that she thinks her protected groups should be free from ridicule (which in turn means they MUST be taken seriously) and that society should stop doing things that she finds tasteless. In short.

Fuck men.
We should take them seriously.
We should stand up to protect them.
Society should censor that which they don't like.

That's not rational, nor skeptical and it is pro-censorship and pro-privilege. It is radical Feminism.

You know before I dive in again, I'd like to say that I could probably go onto Chick Fil A's site and not find anything overt about their anti-gay stance. I could probably go on to White Separatist sites and find little talk about hanging niggers. They know such overt hatred is reviled, but like the Skepchicks they understand nuance is important but don't get that a turd with glitter on it is still a fucking turd.

I am aware that one post does not constitute evidence. I'll be back with more if you so desire.

[charlou]

Ayep, Audley.

[Hermit]

...she doesn't really care that the majority of people who are actually subject to real violence are 15 to 35 year old males...

I have little, if any, respect for Watson, Myers, and some of their acolytes, but you are stretching your bow beyond its breaking point. Can you provide evidence that the majority of 15 to 35 year old males have actually been victims of "real violence"? I think that would be far more difficult than to substantiate the claim that the majority of rapes is inflicted on women, and that the perpetrators of these instances of real violence are overwhelmingly male. Not that you have said anything to the contrary, but please keep in mind that women make up the majority of the world's human population. The plea "that behavior that encourages violence against women and minorities" would then be seen in a somewhat different light. Like several others, I thought this post of yours was really good. The one I have quoted from is not. Rather than reasoned, it borders on the hysterical.

[Coito ergo sum]

...she doesn't really care that the majority of people who are actually subject to real violence are 15 to 35 year old males...

I have little, if any, respect for Watson, Myers, and some of their acolytes, but you are stretching your bow beyond its breaking point. Can you provide evidence that the majority of 15 to 35 year old males have actually been victims of "real violence"?.

He did not say that a majority of 15 to 35 year old males had been the victims of violence. He said the majority of people who were victims of violence were 15 to 35 year old males.

I don't know where his stat comes from, but it is likely pretty close to true, because the US Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that most homicide victims are male. 2/3 of all homicides are committed against men.

The average victim of violent crime as we mentioned before is most often male with rates of violence toward men reported at one third more frequently than for those of women (Ringel, 1997)

http://www.feministjournal.com/women_as_victims.html

Sexual assaults are more common among women, of course. That's the one violent crime where women are statistically more often victims than men.

[mozg]

Can you provide evidence that the majority of 15 to 35 year old males have actually been victims of "real violence"?

That's not what he said.

He said that the majority of violent crime victims are male and between 15 and 35 years old.

Overall, the majority of murder victims in the United States are male. Men are more likely to be victims of other violent crime as well. as 1 in 41 men will be the victim of a serious violent crime, while 1 in 62 women will be. From the same report, the age group comprising the most victims is 18 to 21 years old.

And when defining violent crime to include rape, robbery, simple assault and aggravated assault men have had a higher overall victimization rate for every year between 1973 and 2008 based upon statistics from the National Crime Victimization Survey.

So as far as the United States goes, Audley's assertion is true. Men between 15 and 35 are the majority of victims of violent crime.

Your statement that 'the majority of men between 15 and 35 are the victims of violent crime' is either a misunderstanding of what Audley said, or a straw man.

[Robert_S]

These young males, are they mostly minorities?

Who are the perps in these cases? Are they of the same age group and race?

[Coito ergo sum]

Thunderf00t with another very good point: http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/ ... privilege/

Thunderf00t is correct. There is no "problem" of "hatred of women" in the Skeptic community. This is an entirely manufactured controversy.

Sure, there are probably a few legitimate sociopaths out there in our community, just like in society at large. However, the Skeptic community is likely more egalitarian and more woman-friendly than society at large, given that it is made up largely of rationalists.

[Robert_S]

They say it is a "problem in the skeptical community". It exists in society, we may agree or disagree the extent though.

That phrasing carelessly implies that the skeptic "community" has a distinct problem apart from whatever sexism is is just free floating out in the larger societies that actually allow skeptic societies to exist at all.

[Coito ergo sum]

They say it is a "problem in the skeptical community". It exists in society, we may agree or disagree the extent though.

That phrasing carelessly implies that the skeptic "community" has a distinct problem apart from whatever sexism is is just free floating out in the larger societies that actually allow skeptic societies to exist at all.

And, then, of course, we have the conflation of sexism and misogyny, as if the same were, well, the same.

[Audley Strange]

...she doesn't really care that the majority of people who are actually subject to real violence are 15 to 35 year old males...

I have little, if any, respect for Watson, Myers, and some of their acolytes, but you are stretching your bow beyond its breaking point. Can you provide evidence that the majority of 15 to 35 year old males have actually been victims of "real violence"? I think that would be far more difficult than to substantiate the claim that the majority of rapes is inflicted on women, and that the perpetrators of these instances of real violence are overwhelmingly male. Not that you have said anything to the contrary, but please keep in mind that women make up the majority of the world's human population. The plea "that behavior that encourages violence against women and minorities" would then be seen in a somewhat different light. Like several others, I thought this post of yours was really good. The one I have quoted from is not. Rather than reasoned, it borders on the hysterical.

So if women make up the majority then we add the "minorities" then essentially what is excluded is a minority. Thus by excluding that minority deliberately I would say what seems well meant exposes the ideological underpinning of her thought.

Your are perfectly entitled to think I'm bordering on hysteria (which I could point out is itself a deeply sexist term but so what?) and you are perfectly entitled to continue to misread or misunderstand or misconstrue what I say, Hermit. I would actually wonder if the majority of rapes are actually inflicted upon women in say somewhere like the U.S. where it seems that prison rape is so prevelant. I have no statistics to compare, but then since the maority of prison rapes tend to go unreported how could we possibly know?

However I had statistics proving that in the U.K at least the group most likely to be subject to actual violent crime were men within that age group. I'll try and find it if you like.

oops my bad.. 16 to 24 year olds.

http://tna.europarchive.org/20100413151 ... 9chap3.pdf

• The overall risk of being a victim of violent crime in the 2008/09 BCS was 3.2 per cent.
Men were about twice as likely as women (4.4% compared with 2.1%) to have
experienced one or more violent crimes in the year prior to interview (Figure 3.3 and
Table 3.02).

• Risk was highest for men aged 16 to 24 (13.2%) and then decreased with increasing
age, with risk levels at less than one per cent for men aged 65 and older.

[Badger3k]

The real question here is







Would you hit it?

Not even with your Peezis.

[Hermit]

I had statistics proving that in the U.K at least the group most likely to be subject to actual violent crime were men within that age group. I'll try and find it if you like.

oops my bad.. 16 to 24 year olds.

http://tna.europarchive.org/20100413151 ... 9chap3.pdf

• The overall risk of being a victim of violent crime in the 2008/09 BCS was 3.2 per cent.
Men were about twice as likely as women (4.4% compared with 2.1%) to have
experienced one or more violent crimes in the year prior to interview (Figure 3.3 and
Table 3.02).

• Risk was highest for men aged 16 to 24 (13.2%) and then decreased with increasing
age, with risk levels at less than one per cent for men aged 65 and older.

Regrettable as this is, it pales in comparison to the prevalence of rape, particularly in regard to the ratio of women being raped by men, and suffering other forms of violence. From the New York Times: "An exhaustive government survey of rape and domestic violence released on Wednesday affirmed that sexual violence against women remains endemic in the United States and in some instances may be far more common than previously thought. Nearly one in five women surveyed said they had been raped or had experienced an attempted rape at some point, and one in four reported having been beaten by an intimate partner."
Also from the New York Times: "According to most estimates, 80-90% of rapes are not reported to authorities. Current trends project that 1 in 3 American women will be sexually assaulted at some point during her life."

[Badger3k]

Possibly relevant - more from Surly Amy on this podcast (http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/2012/ ... white-men/)

Justin Vacula says

She says that she wants policies to say "making fake jewelry and intentionally offending people is not okay nor is grabbing someone's ass." (There is ass-grabbing? I wasn't aware this was a problem or actually happened at TAM or atheist conventions.)

Another who listened to the podcast said this:

'm listening to that Surly Amy thing. She starts by saying Elevator Man ("you're interesting, how about coffee?") is bad. Later on, when she's saying how she's ok with people 'hooking up' she describes a much more explicit 'hit on' scenario ("Hey, you're cute, how about we hook up?") and says that that sort of thing would be great. Oh dear.

Now, I haven't listened to it myself, so I can't verify this as correct, but based on past actions I'm inclined to accept it as accurate for now. If it is true, then...WTF?

[Audley Strange]

I had statistics proving that in the U.K at least the group most likely to be subject to actual violent crime were men within that age group. I'll try and find it if you like.

oops my bad.. 16 to 24 year olds.

http://tna.europarchive.org/20100413151 ... 9chap3.pdf

• The overall risk of being a victim of violent crime in the 2008/09 BCS was 3.2 per cent.
Men were about twice as likely as women (4.4% compared with 2.1%) to have
experienced one or more violent crimes in the year prior to interview (Figure 3.3 and
Table 3.02).

• Risk was highest for men aged 16 to 24 (13.2%) and then decreased with increasing
age, with risk levels at less than one per cent for men aged 65 and older.

Regrettable as this is, it pales in comparison to the prevalence of rape, particularly in regard to the ratio of women being raped by men, and suffering other forms of violence. From the New York Times: "An exhaustive government survey of rape and domestic violence released on Wednesday affirmed that sexual violence against women remains endemic in the United States and in some instances may be far more common than previously thought. Nearly one in five women surveyed said they had been raped or had experienced an attempted rape at some point, and one in four reported having been beaten by an intimate partner."
Also from the New York Times: "According to most estimates, 80-90% of rapes are not reported to authorities. Current trends project that 1 in 3 American women will be sexually assaulted at some point during her life."

Thank you. I'll read the report rather than thr NYT's opinion on it.

[edited to add.] Do we have any statisticians?

[Audley Strange]

Alright. This is going to be seriously fucking tough. Before I start. I do not think Rape is a trivial issue at all. However I think there are other issues which are equally as important that are trivialised in comparison. I think this is done not out of any actual malevolence, but because of a social view of the differences in the social worth of men and women which goes against the idea of "The Patriarchy" conspiracy theory.

I question the sample size and the methodology of this report to the extent that it tells us actually very little. I am not trying to minimise the seriousness of Rape and sexual assault as a prevelant if not epidemic crime. I accept it probably is massively under-reported. However I don't know how this study actually helps reveal any qualitative results that can be accurately used.

First of all this...

Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives, including completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration.

This concerns me as a definition of rape. If this is considered an accurate definition then I would expect that a figure of 80 to 90% of non reporting would be a gross underestimate. I looked to see if they actually meant somehow forced alcohol or drug facilitated penetration. But no further down here is a more accurate definition of Rape.

• Rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent. Rape is separated into three types, completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, and completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.
- -Among women, rape includes vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes vaginal or anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object.
- -Among men, rape includes oral or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object.

Does that mean a bit of unwanted saucy brown-finger during a coke binge is super double mutual rape? I'm not sure, but I guess there is nothing wrong with including it because it is better everyone go home horny than having to guess whether they are going to end up on a rape charge because someone got drunk threw themselves at them and then regretted it. That's fucked up for everyone.

Is it a useful definition? I'm not sure.

Still, the sample size appears very very small too. 9086 women doesn't seem exhaustive to me in a country of about 160 million women give or take. I'm willing to be corrected on that, what would a decent sample size be for something to be considered qualitative?

Now I accept that Rape is a common crime, I know it is. This doesn't help give an accurate view, because these were just random responders who were asked some questions and then told they could get $10 if they consented to a second set of questions.

That, to me, also seems very questionable.

And to the questionaires themselves. Well....

This is considered stalking...

How many people have... left unwanted messages. This includes Voice or Text Messages.
made unwanted phone calls yo you. This includes hang ups.

If this sort of shit is considered criminal then I take it all back. Clearly sexual violence is an even bigger and massively under-reported problem.

Or we could do what our office of national statistics did with the report I posted. Number of Reported Crimes. How many male rapes go unreported, how many casual assaults?

I am not trying to trivialise the severity of the problem of rape at all. I know it's not something reported often, I have no problem believing that a great many women suffer terrible abuse in silence and that its an utter fucking tragedy. However when a classification of sexual abuse includes to "have any of your partners ever called you fat" (it's there seriously p107 expressive aggression), I can't take the study seriously.

If anything it demeans actual women who've been actually sexually assaulted by comparing them to girls who've had hurt feeling about bad names.

This kind of thing isn't new and I while am not discounting verbal abuse can be seriously damaging I have to wonder if you stretched definitions of common assault to add things like "Have you ever been called a cockroach or a prick by strangers" just how many men would be seriously under reporting violent crime.

This is all a diversion though. The fact remains it is easier to type and more tasteful to suggest everyone be protected from assault and harrassment. To exclude a group does reveal an ideological underpinning and what's more, I know you know that. As I've said their hearts may well be in the right place, but their heads are up their arses.

TL:DR

Audley denies Rape ever happens while remaining a Rape Apologist.