Schism

[the_leander]

The infamous vid:

Sad thing is, I typed in "Guys, don't do that" and that one popped right up.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Sad thing is, I typed in "Guys, don't do that" and that one popped right up.

I'll just quote myself, shall I?

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

There is an important word in there - I put it there on purpose.

 

[Glaucus]

I'm kinda surprised at how emotional this thread has gotten - and I'm not even a main contributor!!! Well, I guess it's time to remedy that!

Well here's how I see it. I'm actually kinda tired of people who, when faced with a confrontation or awkward moment do nothing at the time and then later bitch and complain about it to everyone who's unfortunate enough to be within earshot. If you have a problem with someone deal with them right there where it happens. If you don't, then just take it and be quiet. When your only action is to complain to others all you do is make yourself look like a loser. Which is fine because not everyone's a winner, but there's really no reason to advertise that either.

 

[the_leander]

I've watched it - more than once.

Awesome.

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.

It's called inline response, a technique first developed in Usenet to allow for individual points to be addressed in a clear and concise manner for other readers.

You are more than welcome to point out where you feel I have destroyed the context.

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.

I yell strawman because you keep making up scenarios that as far as I can tell, bare no resemblance to either the incident in question or to what I have written.

As for not appreciating "abuse", I don't like it when people start dismissing reasonably made responses on the basis of (wrongly) assumed motivations as we see here:

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".

See, I'm not playing the sensitive guy. I'm not playing it because what sensitivity I ever had got beaten out of me a long, long time ago. I'm not in it to try to get in with the ladies, because quite honestly I'm not on the market, I've nothing to prove on that score.

Why am I doing it? Because as far as I can tell, the vast majority of the complaints about this are themselves nothing to do with what has actually been said.

About the only thing you've written that bares a resemblance to reality was that you felt it was wrong of her to talk about the incident. A perfectly reasonable position to take, but one I disagree with. Not because of it's importance, because I agree, it isn't. In the grand scheme of things the incident was pretty much a nothing incident, to me "guys, don't do that" should have been the end of it.

But the reaction it created, both in terms of it encouraging women to speak out about their own negative experiences can only be a good thing, that it was then turned into a constructive effort, again, a good thing, even if you personally feel the results were not to your tastes. That it showed up just how much of a problem has with sexism within the Atheist community, again, I can't see that as a bad thing - you can't deal with a problem until you know what the problem is.

And it's a response that has rippled far beyond the Atheist/Sceptic community, people are speaking up about the issue of sexism, I point to the gaming community because it's had some of the most hard line responses as an example. There was a 1000+ response post on slashdot the other week regarding the treatment a woman received at Defcon.

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.

Again, if you feel where I have cut has removed some piece of context that you feel is important, by all means point it out.

 

[Glaucus]

I yell strawman because you keep making up scenarios that as far as I can tell, bare no resemblance to either the incident in question or to what I have written.

Then it's not a strawman. A strawman is when your opponent intentionally misrepresents your own arguments and then rips apart that misrepresentation. It's usually not effective in a one on one argument because your opponent knows what he says and should be able to catch on although it can still be hard to defend against. However, it can be a good way to convince 3rd parties.

Personally, I don't see any strawmen here.

 

[the_leander]

I'll just quote myself, shall I?

There is an important word in there - I put it there on purpose.

And as I said, explaining why it might make someone feel uncomfortable was the rational thing to do. I get that you don't like the fact that she used a real world example. But here's the thing - it's harder to dismiss an example then a carefully crafted piece of fiction that covers the same issue.

If this guy has genuine issues, such as say, Autism, as someone who has worked with Autists I'll tell you that having it explained to them in reasonable terms why a given behaviour in some contexts is not a great idea is a welcome thing, because these lads (and it is mostly lads) simply cannot pickup on these social rules otherwise.

If it was simply, he was pissed, lets face it, he would have gotten a ribbing or a few wtf's from the lads afterwards for being such a muppet. Again... Meh.

 

[the_leander]

Then it's not a strawman. A strawman is when your opponent intentionally misrepresents your own arguments and then rips apart that misrepresentation. It's usually not effective in a one on one argument because your opponent knows what he says and should be able to catch on although it can still be hard to defend against. However, it can be a good way to convince 3rd parties.

Thanks, but here's the thing, much of his own initial complaint stemed from a position that neither Watson nor I have. That this is harassment and a a crime. I have said, she has said, it's wrong, that's it. There is your misrepresentation. See Wikipedia definition 2,1

Remove that and what you're left with is a minor disagreement on how to respond to the actual incident and a further disagreement on whether having a harassment policy in place at a con is a good or a bad thing...

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I get that you don't like the fact that she used a real world example.

She used a real life example addressed to a small community, a certain percentage of which would have been in attendance at said conference and she gave sufficient identifying information that a number of the people who were there would be able to identify (or even misidentify) the "culprit" who obviously doesn't feel confident enough in himself to get shot down in public and who inadvisedly decided to try his lame line away from the potential ridicule of the crowd and, in that sense, may have expected some confidence that his humiliation would remain a private moment between two people - who was outed and whose crime was NOT assaulting a woman in an elevator but of being in an elevator with a woman who felt like he MIGHT assault her. She shot the wrong target - it's a further spin on - if you have sinned in your heart then you are guilty except now it isn't even your own heart, it's someone else's.

He is "bad" because of what she thought he might do - even though he didn't do that. If she didn't fear him then the encounter would have been of no significance. Some people are afraid of flying but not because they are guaranteed to die when they get on the plane - but they MIGHT. At a certain point is doesn't matter what the reality of the safety of a situation is, there always remains a chance things will work out badly and if you are going to continue working on the premise that small risk is pretty much the same thing as 50/50 then it doesn't matter how small we make the real risk - the perception of fear will remain.

If she wished to give it as a general lesson all she had to do was drop the identifying details - but she kept them in. That guy, whoever he was, wasn't in the pub with just his mates. He was there with members of a "community" of sorts and his social standing was potentially diminished in this community for no good reason. Either she wanted the people who were in the pub that night to know who this guy was or she just didn't think about that. She demands that people treat her with kid gloves lest their actions (or existence) should invoke feelings of discomfort for her and yet she seems to have no awareness that other people may have feelings or that she could be creating anguish or discomfort for someone else.

 

[the_leander]

What you seem to be overlooking is the fact that this was in a place where there was no escape and in a place far from home, so lacking the emotional backup of knowing friends where nearby at 4am so fewer passers by might be able to intervene... I think if it had been in a bar or some place where there was an immediate out or even in the same place during daylight hours this would never have been brought up.

On the identifying information part, personally I view it as little different than getting a ribbing at the hands of your mates after getting shot down. I guess however it all depends on your circle of friends. On risk... around 1 in 5 women will be raped over the course of their lifetime, 1 in 4 will be molested in some fashion. Most convicted rapists have raped more than one woman... With stats like those, is it any wonder some women (whether you view it as helpful/fair or not) take a default position of Schrodingers rapist. Strategies to offset the risks might include pretending to talk on a mobile phone whilst walking through a street, giving a friend the address of a new partner with a view to call the cops if they don't hear from you in a set time, always doing things in groups, upto and including going to the toilets and so on.

Where I think you're wrong is in claiming she demands she be treated with kid gloves. For the reasons stated in the first paragraph. I got the distinct impression that whilst it was worth a callout, it wasn't that big of a deal to her. She didn't seem visibly upset about it and offered a reasoned explanation as to why it wasn't such a hot idea. Cecilia might be made up of 100% NY baddass, but in my experience, most are pretty ineffectual, capable of offering little to no resistance to even someone my height.

 

[cecilia]

Cecilia might be made up of 100% NY baddass, but in my experience, most are pretty ineffectual, capable of offering little to no resistance to even someone my height.

funny and I agree