Schism

[Glaucus]

They really want the world to be all butterflies and roses and blue sky.

Ya that's so gay. Dudes know that Ponies are where it's at!

 

[cecilia]

Ya that's so gay. Dudes know that Ponies are where it's at!

I just recently discovered these people. holy crap!
and I heard about them having sex (?) dressed up as ponies....AKKKKKK
oh, the horror!!

 

[robert l. bentham]

[/Congratulations, trolls and misogynists quote]

well that was a sad read.. but thanx.. almost shoulda been in war on women thread...imho

 

[cecilia]

yes, it IS sad. but in my opinion THIS kind of abuse is something I can control. Online I have never used my full name. No one knows who my family is, where I live or how to contact me. Both FaceBook and G+ let me block anyone I wish.
On message boards I can Ignore or report abusers.
Email allows me to block and report abusers.

and so on............

If someone tries to abuse me in person I have many options from calling the police to punching the fu_cker

of course being tall means I'm less likely to have some dipstick try to confront me, so I do understand why shorter ladies are concerned.

Anyway, the point I was trying to convey to these gals was that they have to take control of their lives or they will spend their time reacting to these silly boys. They shouldn't give Power to others. of course they completely interpret this as me "blaming the victim".

That's them accepting they are victims.

I NEVER see myself as a victim. I see myself as a problem solver

From this admittedly short introduction my view of "Atheists+" is a bunch of gals who want to whine about being victimized by those nasty testosterone meatsacks

Well, that is NOT how I want to spend my life. It's negative and unproductive.

 

[the_leander]

I sort of heard about this Rebecca Watson and her 'adventure' at a convention in an elevator. Apparently she got all Butt-hurt when a guy in the elevator asked her out for a cup of coffee...or something.

Actually, what happened was, she said "guys, don't do that".

That's it, no drama, nothing, in fact if you can, look at the video where she said it. It was an off the cuff remark that frankly should never have blown up the way it did.

Instead, a whole bunch of people collectively lost their shit.

Hell, it's my personal belief that this whole thing is the reason fodder for animal feed is so high this season.

and then got REALLY butthurt when Dawkins told her to get over it. I sort agree with him. She's making a tempest in a teapot here.

Actually, she really, didn't. She got butthurt over the fact that dawkins, like you didn't really bother to investigate what happened and took her to task over the strawman that had developed in the mean time.

I can't really imagine you taking someone attacking you over something you've never said or implied with good grace either. Especially when that someone is an authority figure whose opinion you respect.

what bores me about some of these 'feminist' gals is that they spend way too much time wagging their fingers at people. oy vey.
talk to me about sexism when some asshole tells you he's not paying you the same as a guy. THEN I'll take you seriously

One of the interesting things I've discovered as a result of "elevatorgate" is that sexism is a multifaceted creature that really does require study. The same mindset that deems it acceptable to pay a woman less for the same job, is simply a symptom of the same disease that in some people's eyes view women of being incapable of making decisions about their bodies.

 

[the_leander]

yes, it IS sad. but in my opinion THIS kind of abuse is something I can control. Online I have never used my full name. No one knows who my family is, where I live or how to contact me. Both FaceBook and G+ let me block anyone I wish.
On message boards I can Ignore or report abusers.
Email allows me to block and report abusers.

and so on............

I kind of view this in the same way I viewed dealing with 9/11 troofers back in the early naughties. At first, you deal with it, you block the worst offenders, you ignore some of the others, you deal with what you can. The problem is after a while it wears you down. By 2006 I'd pretty much given up. I'd studied 9/11 from every conceivable angle, tested to destruction all the loonspud theories that had been thrown my way. But in the end, I just didn't have the willpower to continue to fight against a tidal wave of horse manure.

If someone tries to abuse me in person I have many options from calling the police to punching the fu_cker

of course being tall means I'm less likely to have some dipstick try to confront me, so I do understand why shorter ladies are concerned.

I imagine that it if was simply once every blue moon that these gals got sent these threats they could, like you shrug it off.

But from the various conferences I've watched, it is an unending torrent (upto and including pictures of their homes in at least one case I'm aware of and the implicit threat of doxing in another) .

Anyway, the point I was trying to convey to these gals was that they have to take control of their lives

Spheres of influence. These women are public figures in their own right and as such act like lightning rods for every nutter going, the fact that they're women means that on top of the usual flailing shite that the guys get, they also get threatened with rape.

Their sole crime from what I can see is to demand that they not be treated like pieces of meat.

or they will spend their time reacting to these silly boys. They shouldn't give Power to others. of course they completely interpret this as me "blaming the victim".

The problem with that is, it isn't just "silly boys" doing this crap. When hundreds of people start emailing you death and rape threats, coupled with blank emails with pictures of your home, there is a problem. Sure, call in the authorities etc, but at some stage, it becomes a simple question of "is this really worth it?"

That's them accepting they are victims.

I can't really come up with a description other than that for the level of sustained abuse they've been on the business end of.

But if you've got one, I'd love to hear it.

I NEVER see myself as a victim. I see myself as a problem solver

From this admittedly short introduction my view of "Atheists+" is a bunch of gals who want to whine about being victimized by those nasty testosterone meatsacks

You really need to read more into it if that is your impression. The purpose is to discuss how to best combat those those nasty testosterone meatsacks.

For instance. Watson said "guys, don't do that", once you cleaned up all the spittle produced by the MRAs, a number of women said, "you know what, yeah similar things have happened to me".

Solution: Actively enforced behavior policies to be introduced at Atheist conferences.

That's it.

Nearly all of the shit post elevatorgate has been the reaction to the push for policies to be put in place, just like every other con you might go to.

The protest against what I think is a pretty reasonable solution has been absolutely stunning in terms of both it's ferocity and duration. And with every attack, proved the necessity for the policies. IMHO

Well, that is NOT how I want to spend my life. It's negative and unproductive.

Maybe that same consideration is why some have simply said bollocks to the lot of it.

 

[cecilia]

As I said, all this is completely new to me, so thanks for educating me on some details I wasn't aware of.

As I have (in my youth) attended scifi conventions I must say that if this sort of abuse is COMMON place i am frankly shocked!

If these atheist conventions are run in a similar fashion to the ones I was familiar with you have to Pay to get in. That means you have to order a ticket in advance, and give some identification.

If idiots are being abusive, call the hotel security (or the cops) and have the bastards thrown out,
take their pictures and any and all other personal details and create a list of idiots who have a lifetime ban from being admitted to these conventions.

make a web site with their pictures in full glorious color for all the world to see (including potential future employers) .

if people are sending abusive emails I do believe that is illegal. In a similar way that making a threatening phone call is illegal. And it's especially illegal to Stalk someone. SO if it's repeated, that's stalking. All of this can be handled by involving the police / FBI.

I can certainly understand how a person can get tired of the bullshit and I'm NOT saying the blogger shouldn't have decided to stop. Heck, that decision is entirely up to her, none of my business, do what she needs to so.


please believe me when i say that if this is happening All the time I am just amazed!
If it was me, I would have Immediately cut these people out of the conventions.

of course, i didn't even know there were conventions until just recently. (I know, WHERE have I been)

 

[the_leander]

As I said, all this is completely new to me, so thanks for educating me on some details I wasn't aware of.

No worries, I became aware of it a few months after the initial video where Watson said what she did. Even now looking at it, and then looking at the response I'm left scratching my head. For the life of me I simply don't understand where the vitriol is coming from.

As I have (in my youth) attended scifi conventions I must say that if this sort of abuse is COMMON place i am frankly shocked!

As I understand it, it's not hugely common, but as with so many other things, there are a handful of individuals who seem to go out of their way to ruin it for the rest.

If these atheist conventions are run in a similar fashion to the ones I was familiar with you have to Pay to get in. That means you have to order a ticket in advance, and give some identification.

If idiots are being abusive, call the hotel security (or the cops) and have the bastards thrown out,
take their pictures and any and all other personal details and create a list of idiots who have a lifetime ban from being admitted to these conventions.

Pretty much. Many of the conventions had basic terms and conditions, what they asked for was the specific inclusion of rules to deal with creepers. Most of the people organising the cons had no issue with adding such and were actually grateful for the feedback. Some pointed out that whilst they didn't have specific policies, they would and did deal with it in the manner described, but would add it anyway (because, hell, why not?)

make a web site with their pictures in full glorious color for all the world to see (including potential future employers) .

Tempting though that is, the danger there is that you might end up on the wrong end of legal action.

if people are sending abusive emails I do believe that is illegal. In a similar way that making a threatening phone call is illegal. And it's especially illegal to Stalk someone. SO if it's repeated, that's stalking. All of this can be handled by involving the police / FBI.

I can certainly understand how a person can get tired of the bullshit and I'm NOT saying the blogger shouldn't have decided to stop. Heck, that decision is entirely up to her, none of my business, do what she needs to so.

I think one of the most fascinating things is that most of this stuff was generally unknown, for fear of "feeding the trolls". Seeing the reaction to it being brought to light has been interesting to say the least, and not just within the sceptic set. This has also exploded within the gaming community as well, with an almost identical reaction to the one seen post elevatorgate.

I'll try and dig up the link for the original video if I can, because the talk being given was interesting in itself, but the thing that caused it to start was such an innocuous off the cuff remark.

please believe me when i say that if this is happening All the time I am just amazed!
If it was me, I would have Immediately cut these people out of the conventions.

I have no doubt, I think for me personally the biggest surprise that there wasn't already specific policies in place to begin with, I mean can you think of a single con in any other community that doesn't?

of course, i didn't even know there were conventions until just recently. (I know, WHERE have I been)

Until all this blew up and I actually started to pay attention I was in the same boat. Then again it was only recently that I learned of the existence of comic con.

 

[cecilia]

Tempting though that is, the danger there is that you might end up on the wrong end of legal action.

when you file a police report that becomes public. I don't mean people should have their pictures up willy nilly.


and, frankly, the main purpose in my view is for convention organizers to know who the assholes are. So, if you and others have 'concerns', then this info can be available to Only convention organizers.

Until all this blew up and I actually started to pay attention I was in the same boat. Then again it was only recently that I learned of the existence of comic con.

ha! comic cons are like cousins to scifi cons so I've known about those since forever.
I wish I could afford to go to the one in San Diego because I'd love an excuse to go to that adorable city.

 

[cecilia]

and, btw, as I recall my misspent youth, scifi conventions not only have the usual hotel security, we often had our own 'security'. Meaning members of the con who specifically helped monitor crowds and dealt with problems. I'm not saying that can be problematic for a variety of reasons, but I point out that we thought there was a need - and this was decades ago.

I must say that I used to attend these things and just never had a problem - no one abused me.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I have no doubt, I think for me personally the biggest surprise that there wasn't already specific policies in place to begin with, I mean can you think of a single con in any other community that doesn't?

Would a policy have dealt harshly with a male who made a clumsy attempt to ask a female for a date in an elevator and took "no" for an answer? There IS a definition of harassment - this isn't it. The issue is not about whether harassment is good or bad, it's about perspective. We could solve the problem by making women wear sacks over their bodies and never go out in public without a family member as an escort. Do we want that - or would we rather have freedom, because with freedom there is always risk. We have laws already that protect women from harassment and, as noted, the problem harassers are a a minority.
Rebecca set the bar too low. So many men have made an ill advised pass or lobbed a desperate long shot after a night at the bar, are they all supposed to feel like criminals now?

 

[the_leander]

Would a policy have dealt harshly with a male who made a clumsy attempt to ask a female for a date in an elevator and took "no" for an answer? There IS a definition of harassment - this isn't it.

Except that no one, except MRAs have said otherwise. Not Watson, not her supporters. Not once. What has happened though is that a number of women spoke out stating that they had been on the receiving end of unwanted attention. Coupled with an unending stream of death and rape threats, where is the problem in adding a policy that already exists in just about any other con set you care to look at?

The issue is not about whether harassment is good or bad, it's about perspective.

Adding a policy in line with other cons as a result of feedback is a perfectly reasonable response.

We could solve the problem by making women wear sacks over their bodies and never go out in public without a family member as an escort.

You know, of all the people I might have expected such a bigoted statement from, you were not on the list.

Do we want that - or would we rather have freedom, because with freedom there is always risk. We have laws already that protect women from harassment and, as noted, the problem harassers are a a minority.

Really, you're claiming the freedom card because they managed to bring into line Atheist cons with everyone else's? Outstanding...

Also, Hobson's choice, really?

Perhaps you'd like to go full retard and Godwin the thread whilst you're at it...

Rebecca set the bar too low.

Rebecca said "guys, don't do that". And even took the time to explain why it wasn't such a great idea for those unclear. Hardly going off the deep end. The level of gross mischaracterisation and flat out lying about what she said and how she reacted frankly is on par with Rush Limburgh's attack on Sandra Fluke. Oh yes, I went there.

The policy response came about wholly and solely as a result of multiple complaints of harassment by other women responding to Watson who have attended Atheist cons and the mass of threats that came as a result of them daring to say it.

So many men have made an ill advised pass or lobbed a desperate long shot after a night at the bar, are they all supposed to feel like criminals now?

Dafuq?

Being asked by con security to knock off a certain behaviour as it happens means feeling criminalised?

As has been pointed out by Cecilia, other cons have staff and policies already in order to deal with issues as they arrive. Surprisingly, there is a deafening amount of silence from these cons regarding the "lack of freedom" at them because it turns out, the system works!

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Being asked by con security to knock off a certain behaviour as it happens means feeling criminalised?

Rebecca didn't just say "guys, don't do that. She quite likely publicly humiliated a person for his awkward attempted pick up, that is to say she made someone uncomfortable for making her uncomfortable. She gave time and place and some identifying physical information and addressed comments to a crowd that almost certainly contained people who would have known who she was talking about. There are certain things the guy can't help about himself - he can't help being a big guy for example. So big guys can't talk to women alone now because they are naturally intimidating? Well, perhaps the x-tians then have a case that openly gay men should be ostracized because gays make them feel uncomfortable. The guy may have been out of line but when Rebecca said "no", that was the end of that - or it should have been and it should have been left there.
If she wanted to pass on advice to "guys" in general she should have fictionalized the event into a general example. I find Rebecca's chastising of a man for social clumsiness deeply ironic considering.
Elevatorgate was offensive to me on that ground and the fact that she implied that flirting/innuendo/asking for a date - whatever - and stopping when asked is in any way equivalent to harassment. That, I find, also deeply offensive. It trivializes real harassment.
So she got rebuffed as I think she deserved. Unfortunately the shit storm that followed has brought forth the exact people that really harass (as part of a vile vocal minority) and what those people are doing is deeply wrong, but it didn't make Rebecca right.
Having a con policy against harassment is like having a con policy against theft and against murder. That stuff is already illegal and you already have security who are supposed to ensure everyone's security and everyone is free to call the police.
And the other great irony is all the bandwagon jumpers who are so eager to fly the "sensitive guy" flag because they hope it'll get them "in with the ladies".
There is so much more wrong with Watson's fight to carve off a tiny chunk of atheism for herself (encouraged by certain others who wish to "differentiate" themselves. This is more about the people involved than it is about women, per se.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Also, Hobson's choice, really?

At least you could have gone so far as to call it a false dichotomy, but I was merely establishing two reference points - but wherever you want to position yourself you are going to have to compromise. How far down the compromise slope do we want to go and in whose favour? Should it be a crime to get on an elevator if you are a man and it means sharing an elevator with a woman because it makes her uncomfortable - or should it only be a crime if the relative sizes of the man and the woman are such that the man can physically overpower the woman? Should it be a crime to ask a woman a question if her answer is going to be "no"?

There are serious problems with discrimination and oppression and harassment in the world but elevator-gate comes across like the complaint of some Hollywood wife saying her life is ruined because the manicurist failed to apply the nail polish completely smoothly on her left pinky. When there are problems in the world - fight the big ones first.

 

[the_leander]

Rebecca didn't just say "guys, don't do that.

Yes, she did. If you like I'll go dig up the video, it's on youtube.

She quite likely publicly humiliated a person for his awkward attempted pick up, that is to say she made someone uncomfortable for making her uncomfortable.

But making her feel uncomfortable is acceptable? People shouldn't complain, is that what you're saying?

She gave time and place and some identifying physical information and addressed comments to a crowd that almost certainly contained people who would have known who she was talking about.

And?

There are certain things the guy can't help about himself - he can't help being a big guy for example. So big guys can't talk to women alone now because they are naturally intimidating?

ROTFL.

He didn't just talk to her, he threw her a pickup line, in an enclosed space, at 4am, in a place she was not a resident of, of course that'll make most women uncomfortable. She said "guys, don't do that" she explained why.

Well, perhaps the x-tians then have a case that openly gay men should be ostracized because gays make them feel uncomfortable.

Did you get a free selection of strawmen this morning or what?

The guy may have been out of line but when Rebecca said "no", that was the end of that - or it should have been and it should have been left there.

If it was out of line, it deserved to be called. It isn't as though she was screaming from the rooftops about it, it was made at the end of a talk, it was made rationally and the reasons explaining why it wasn't such a good idea were given, again, calmly.

If she wanted to pass on advice to "guys" in general she should have fictionalized the event into a general example. I find Rebecca's chastising of a man for social clumsiness deeply ironic considering.

Why? Parables are cute and all, but given the reaction, those same people who have been jumping up and down about this would simply have said "it doesn't happen in real life, it's made up"...

Elevatorgate was offensive to me on that ground and the fact that she implied that flirting/innuendo/asking for a date - whatever - and stopping when asked is in any way equivalent to harassment.

No, she didn't.

That, I find, also deeply offensive. It trivializes real harassment.

Again, never stated it was harrasment, just that it was not a good idea. You want to play the strawman game find someone who won't use you for a chew toy.

So she got rebuffed as I think she deserved.

She deserved to be threatened with rape, with being murdered? Who are you and what have you done with the real Fluffy?

Seriously dude.

Having a con policy against harassment is like having a con policy against theft and against murder. That stuff is already illegal and you already have security who are supposed to ensure everyone's security and everyone is free to call the police.

Or, you know, you could have security staff on hand within the event who are closer and authorise them to deal with such situations upto and including holding people to hand over to police.

Like every other con.

And the other great irony is all the bandwagon jumpers who are so eager to fly the "sensitive guy" flag because they hope it'll get them "in with the ladies".

Uhuh, and you got your degree in psychology when, exactly? You would do well to withdraw that remark.

 

[cecilia]

Well, I have to admit when I read Watson's account of this elevator incident I thought,"ugh, he asked you out and that's it?"

I mean, why is she even THINKING about it anymore?

I could tell her stories about people trying to pick me up when I was younger.

I remember walking around Washington Square (a park in the Village) and some guy walks up to me - asks if I would come to his studio and dance for him while he takes my picture...or something like that.

Of course I'm thinking, 'yeah, I'll go and be attacked by the next serial killer' SUUUUUUURE

I just said no and walked away.

I just see this and most such encounters as 'funny' stories. nothing more.

some guys are just weird and creepy. it's nothing personal.

and then there are the criminal stalker wackos and then you call the cops.

most guys are just dealing with a natural hormonal attraction and sometimes get a bit clumsy about it. Why be offended? The thing that confused me about this Watson incident is the Anger. Being annoyed is one thing but why HATE guys just because they may not always know the "best" way to approach lady A or B??
basically, as long as a person (of any sex) doesn't cross the line (like touch me without my permission), I won't care if they are socially inept. If they cross the line, then I change my reaction, of course.

I grew up in a city where being Street Smart is learned early because you have to. That's all about sizing people up very quickly. Watson seems to assume ALL guys are creeps. This is not a useful point of view. Plus, it's unfair

 

[the_leander]

At least you could have gone so far as to call it a false dichotomy, but I was merely establishing two reference points - but wherever you want to position yourself you are going to have to compromise.

No, not at all, policies that have been put in place are more than adequate, Watson has said her piece, the end.

How far down the compromise slope do we want to go and in whose favour? Should it be a crime to get on an elevator if you are a man and it means sharing an elevator with a woman because it makes her uncomfortable - or should it only be a crime if the relative sizes of the man and the woman are such that the man can physically overpower the woman? Should it be a crime to ask a woman a question if her answer is going to be "no"?

No one here but you and a whole bunch of MRAs have even once described this as a "crime". Perhaps you'd like to discuss with me something I've actually said.

There are serious problems with discrimination and oppression and harassment in the world but elevator-gate comes across like the complaint of some Hollywood wife saying her life is ruined because the manicurist failed to apply the nail polish completely smoothly on her left pinky. When there are problems in the world - fight the big ones first.

Elevatorgate was, as far as Watson was concerned dealt with in it's entirety when she mentioned it in her speech. By any reasonable measure, that really should have been the end of it. You're the one repeatedly and consistently ascribing to her and me things we have never said or implied.

 

[cecilia]

now, here is the part that amazes me:

When hundreds of people start emailing you death and rape threats, coupled with blank emails with pictures of your home, there is a problem.

THIS is so clearly criminal behavior.

I mean whatever happened to discussing the issue??

also, is it really 'hundreds' (not that I doubt you, I'm just asking). I mean a dozen people can use many email addresses. Once people use pictures of your home it's time to call the cops.

actually, sending threatening emails would have sent me to the cops.

but why do that (send nasty emails)? why get pissed off just because she is being critical of this guy? I seriously don't know where some of these people get the energy and time for all this angst

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Yes, she did. If you like I'll go dig up the video, it's on youtube.

I've watched it - more than once.

As to your responses - you know what you are treating my text like you are doing bible study. Chopping it up line by line and criticizing the decontextualized chunks is meaningless - while somehow not seeing all of the words in the sentences. I've said what I've said and as far as I can tell it is not the same thing that you read. Yell strawman all you like but you've strawmanned me - your rebuttals and remonstrations are mostly addressed by the surrounding text and previous posts and I don't appreciate being so abused. What I've written I'll let stand because it seems it will only incite you further if I attempt to clarify it further. The clearer I try to make it, the more words I will need, and the more opportunity you will have to chop them up.

 

[cecilia]

btw, I seriously find the term "Elevatorgate" hysterical.
not sure why