Non-Objectivist Schismology

[9thdoctor]

I check out the goings on at various secularist sites on a somewhat regular basis, and I’ve recently been reading about a blow-up over the last month within that “community” that mirrors the worst of the worst of O-land. The short version is that if you don’t stay in line with the feminists, you not only will be unwelcome, but they will actively try to mess with you “in real life”, particularly by trying to get you fired from wherever you work.

The casus belli, as I’m seeing it, is a claim by a blogger named Rebecca Watson that in attending secularist conferences, which mind you top out at about 2,000 attendees, she’s had “hundreds of atheists” say one of three things to her: 1. they want/plan to rape her, 2. someone else should rape her (for her own good), 3. it’s too bad she’s so ugly or else someone would rape her, which would, again, be oh so good for her. There’s no hint that she’s engaging in hyperbole, she’s definitely speaking literally (see the video below, at 4:50). The upshot is a call for a strongly worded sexual harassment policy, composed to (radical?) feminist standards, to be promulgated at each of these events. Richard Dawkins voiced his opposition via a sarcastic parody piece, which enraged its supporters and led to denunciations the Checking Premises crowd could glean material from. Now I’ve never attended one of these events so I must confess a certain ignorance of the environment, but I’m sorry, this woman’s claims do not pass the smell test. Hundreds? One each I’d credit, while still reserving plenty of doubt. Not hundreds, that’s drama queen territory there.

Some other figures within the movement have, naturally, called bullshit on her, YouTube star Thunderf00t (TF) among them. This led to him being kicked off FreeThoughtBlogs (FTB), which is the online home and fiefdom of PZ Myers, of Expelled! fame. Now it seems that FTB has a private email list just for contributors, through which the instructions to the “hive-mind” (as another critic has called it) are issued. Immediately after receiving an email notifying him that he had been removed from this list, TF opened his original welcome email, and clicked the link which had originally made him a member of the list. The link perfomed it’s function, and so he continued to receive the private emails. Did he do this thinking his removal was a mistake? Maybe, though before long he must have known that he was getting material that he wasn’t supposed to still be getting. One pictures him gleefully reading the backchannel denunciations of himself, rather like how I enjoy reviewing this gem. Ultimately the blame belongs with the system administrator.

About a month later the hive-mind received/issued orders to get someone fired from their job at the Center for Inquiry. His offense? A tweet opining that FTB is “unreadable”. TF forwarded the material to the person in question, and kaboom! Out of bag springs the cat. Charges that TF broke the law, this was hacking, he should be fired from his University position (he works at Cornell), he belongs in jail, we’re calling our lawyers…I mean wow. I don’t think even Comrade Sonia has yet reached this level of hysteria and sliminess, and the backchannel stuff sounds like MSK’s description of Pigero’s methods. I must acknowledge that I’ve enjoyed TF’s videos enough that I feel inclined to extend him benefit of the doubt, if there needs to be any. It’s not really different from the Reisman’s publishing the internal memos about their expulsion. Or McCaskey, though in that case he had permission, however unwillingly extracted.

So, the takeaway is, if you’re at all prone to despair over the “Objectivist Movement”, it’s at least as bad elsewhere, if not worse!

This video predates TF’s expulsion, but it presents the dispute effectively, and pretty thoroughly.

Here’s his blog, from there you can link to the people on the other side, if you find you’re developing that level of interest in the story.

http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/

[George H. Smith]

For decades most so-called "secularist" and "freethought" organizations have been little more that leftist outfits that promote only those causes that happen to conform to their political agenda.

Consider: Despite writing three books on atheism --the first of which (ATCAG) was one of the most influential books on atheism written in the 20th century --I have been invited to speak at only one national conference over the past 35 years . And that one occasion (c. 1980) generated controversy among the board members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (founded by an avowed socialist), owing to my libertarianism.

I have, of course, spoken at numerous local conferences (though not in years), and on several occasions I urged freethinkers to take the partisan politics out of their organizations. My advice fell on deaf ears, as I expected it would. But it still depresses me to see "freethinkers" treating Ayn Rand with utter contempt, even though she has been one of the most influential atheists in modern times, and even though her struggles as a female radical and writer should make her an exemplar of feminism.

You correctly point out that the mentality of many "secularists" makes even Orthodox Objectivists look open-minded by comparison. It's been that way for a long time. I have never joined any such organization, and things would have to change dramatically before I ever would.

For two years the webmaster of a prominent freethought site has been after me to a write a blog on anything I like and as often as I like. I would probably agree, if there was some money involved. But my "freebie" days are over.

Ghs

[caroljane]

This is the 'human interest" which makes these sagas so fascinating to onlookers. While investigating something for another topic, I found out that even the Anti-Jihadist conspiracy theorists are always fighting with each other.

There's none sae queer as folk.

[william.scherk]

Rebecca Watson

ND has presented a particular side of the story of Rebecca Watson and the "Elevatorgate" debate in the skeptical community.

As with Objectivish things, the great majority of quoted, published, promoted and celebrated skeptic/atheist activists are male (though by no means all). The majority of attendants at skeptical conferences (SkepCon, The Amazing Meeting, DragonCon skepstream, etc) are male.

As with many exciting conferences, social aspects are strong. Fun, meetings, parties, hookups, flirting, yadda yadda.

Watson writes for Skepchick blog, for Skeptical Inquirer, for Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, speaks at CFI events, etcetara. She has been around for a while, and has emerged as a lodestar or point of reference for women skeptics.

Reporting on the conference she attended , she posted a video (

, via Youtube) that among other things related an incident she thought worthy of noting. I will cut and paste that particular part later. This is the infamous Rebecca saying "Guys, don't do that" after relating a relatively minor uncomfortable moment where a celebrant and her were alone in an elevator at the very end of the night of socializing in the bar ...

Here is Watson's post at Skepchick that returned to the subject, in reaction to the quickly-developing brouhaha**:

The Privilege Delusion

Well, PZMyers, JenMcCreight, PhilPlait, AmandaMarcotte, GregLaden, MelissaMcEwan and others have all already said it, but I figured I should postthis for the record: yes, Richard Dawkins believes I should be a good girl andjust shut up about being sexually objectified because it doesn’t botherhim. Thanks, wealthy old heterosexual white man!

When I started this site, I didn’t call myself a feminist. I had ahazy idea that feminism was a good thing, but it was something that otherpeople worried about, not me. I was living in a time and culture that hadtranscended the need for feminism, because in my world we were all rationalatheists who had thrown off our religious indoctrination so that I could freelymake rape jokes without fear of hurting someone who had been raped.

And then I would make a comment about how there could really be more womenin the community, and the responses from my fellow skeptics and atheists rangedfrom “No, they’re not logical like us,” to “Yes, so wecan fuck them!” That seemed weird.

So I started speaking more about women. About how they’re not idiots.About how they can think logically but maybe there are other social pressureskeeping them away from our message, like how we tell women they should be quietand polite and not question what is told to them. I spoke about how people needrole models, and there were so few women on stage at these events.

And I got messages from women who told me about how they had troubleattending pub gatherings and other events because they felt uncomfortable in aroom full of men. They told me about how they were hit on constantly and itdrove them away. I didn’t fully get it at the time, because Ididn’t mind getting hit on. But I acknowledged their right to feel thatway and I started suggesting to the men that maybe they relax a little and nottry to get in the pants of every woman who walks through the door. Maybe theycould wait for her to make the first move, just in case.

And then, for the past few years as the audience for Skepchick and SGU grew,I’ve had more and more messages from men who tell me what they’dlike to do to me, sexually. More and more men touching me without permission atconferences. More and more threats of rape from those who don’t agreewith me, even from those who consider themselves skeptics and atheists. Moreand more people telling me to shut up and go back to talking about Bigfoot andother topics that really matter.

And I said no. I learned more about modern feminism and about how theirgoals so clearly overlapped those of the humanists and skeptics andsecularists, and I wrote and spoke more about the issues within that overlapbecause so few other skeptics were doing it.

So here we are today. I am a feminist, because skeptics and atheists made meone. Every time I mention, however delicately, a possible issue of misogyny orobjectification in our community, the response I get shows me that the problemis much worse than I thought, and so I grow angrier. I knew that eventually Iwould reach a sort of feminist singularity where I would explode and in myplace would rise some kind of Captain Planet-type superhero but for feminists.I believe that day has nearly arrived.

You may recall that I relatedan incident in which I was propositioned, and I said, “Guys,don’t do that.” Really, that’s what I said. I didn’tcall for an end to sex. I didn’t accuse the man in my story of rape. Ididn’t say all men are monsters. I said, “Guys, don’t dothat.” Cue RichardDawkins‘ response:

Dear Muslima

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

Richard

This is especially interesting since Richard Dawkins sat next to me inDublin and heard me talk about the threats of rape I get. This is one I keep asa screenshot to use an example for people who don’t understand:

Everything went haywire from that point on ...

Edited September 3, 2012 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

Nice.

how do those who claim that religion, especially Islam, is the fount of misogyny explain this attitude of "humanists"?

[9thdoctor]

ND has presented a particular side of the story of Rebecca Watson and the "Elevatorgate" debate in the skeptical community.

I read Dawkins’ reply as signifying that she has no credibility with him either. My purpose was merely to point to this crazy schism, to maybe share some schadenfreude, though I realize in my presentation of it I do “take a side”. As I noted, I haven’t been to one of these conferences, so they may very well be a collection of horny nerds playing grab ass with the one in ten attendees who is female. Just one pinball machine short of that scene in The Accused. I sure doubt it, however.

Cristina Rad made a video about it in which she spoke about the single uncomfortable instance she experienced. I’ve posted her videos here before, she’s the blonde Romanian who has a combination of looks, brains, and charm such that I’d rank her a ten (assuming she’s like that in person). It was in a bar, and it was a drunk woman who invited her to join in for a threesome with her husband. Turned down, she invited a guy to join her for a threesome, again with her husband. I don’t remember exactly, but either she was asked to leave, or everyone else left to get away from her. You don’t have to be at a conference for shit like that to happen.

Here’s a link to her channel, I don’t know which video it’s in.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ZOMGitsCriss

[Robert Campbell]

Ahh, Rebecca Watson.

I hadn't been hearing about her for a while.

Indeed, there are people who make the nuttiest denizens of Rand-land look sane.

Robert Campbell

[william.scherk]

Here is the part of Rebecca Watson's video blog that set off the whole dreary infighting ... 4 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac-y818KoqI

[Selene]

So, let me get this straight, he asked her to come to his room for coffee because he was interested in discussing her presented ideas.

This was a proposition?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's weird how people pick and quibble over things that don't mean anything.

I watched the Rebecca Watson video and, from her nervous twitchy demeanor, I can see how she would be uncomfortable being alone with a man she doesn't know in an elevator at 4:00 AM, and in a foreign country to boot. And how she could have a hostile interpretation of his intentions (which may or may not be correct). Anyway, that's between her and the dude. There's no law against being an asshole (on either side).

But the thing that honked at me was her presuppositions. Whenever I hear someone talking--as if it is a done deal--that a certain class of people uniformly want the "tools" and "support structure" she is "giving" so altruistically, I see a power monger. How does she know most of the people in her target class even want her help? She doesn't. I don't think she cares enough to find out, either.

I don't know this woman, so I am going on a first impression. But I have seen loads of people I am very familiar with who act just like she does.

Tools and support structures are good things, but in a context like this one, they look more to me like tools and support structures for the power of the provider, not really for the benefit of the "oppressed." Oh, these provider folks always make a few case studies for show, but let a person who really needs and tries to use Watson's rose-colored-glasses tools and support structure--without supporting Watson's grasp for power (or that of her cronies)--and see how far she gets in receiving help to resolve her problems. Say, if a person like Sarah Palin (especially one without fame) suddenly needed Watson's feminist "we women have to stand together" help.

Heh.

Double heh.

The bait and switch, to me, is the really creepy part.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

So, let me get this straight, he asked her to come to his room for coffee because he was interested in discussing her presented ideas.

This was a proposition?

Yeah, obviously, I mean “coffee” and “coitus” both begin with a hard “c”, as does…

Anyway, concerning Elevatorgate, somewhere (just google it) I read that a photograph was taken of this group hanging out in the hotel bar, just before she left (at 4 AM mind you), and that therefore the perp must be in the photograph. Asked to point out which person it was, Ms. Watson soon claimed that she has “face blindness”, prosopagnosia, a condition that makes her unable to recognize or remember faces. Her opponents, who seem to match her boundless energy, then dug out clips of her doing guess what? Identifying people by face during a talk on YouTube.

You really can’t make this shit up.

[Selene]

Dennis:

If anyone has the time, watch her eye movements. I would love to know whether she is left handed, right handed, or, ambi-dextrous, which, I am sure would imply a different "proposition" to her.

Adam

[George H. Smith]

This response (by an atheist) to Rebecca Watson's traumatic elevator experience is a bit over-the-top for my tastes, and it is too long, but it makes some good points.

Ghs

[caroljane]

So has everybody had a good look now and made up their minds?

About whether they would proposition her or not of course. That's the important thing isn't it?

[George H. Smith]

So has everybody had a good look now and made up their minds?

About whether they would proposition her or not of course. That's the important thing isn't it?

Do you have a point you would like to make?

Btw, why did Rebecca Watson assume that the elevator guy had anything more in mind than coffee and conversation? How did she know he was straight rather than gay, for example? Why did she assume that no man would possibly wish to talk to her, with no ulterior motives? Is she so irresistible that no man might wish only to talk?

If anyone "sexualized" that encounter and engaged in sexist stereotypes, it was Watson.

Ghs

[caroljane]

George,

My comment followed more from my first one, than from the forensics of What Really Happened in the Elevator.

The hysterical side-taking that ensued in the Skeptical world seemed largely to revolve around Watson's credibility, based on how many guys would really want to come onto her.

For the record, I do not think anyone at OL is doing this, and I have no sexist stereotypes of anyone here. I have not found anyone to be a misogynist, and as you know I enjoy the intergenderal banter very much.

Personally I have never assumed a man had a carnal interest in me until he explicitly expressed it. Maybe I project this by assuming most women feel the same; I have heard enough "Does he like me or not?" to have plenty of evidence.

Moreover I am old school and unlike today's young women I would never make the first move except in an extreme circumstance, such as when I proposed to my husband.

[Robert Campbell]

So has everybody had a good look now and made up their minds?

About whether they would proposition her or not of course. That's the important thing isn't it?

Oy...

I saw that same video several years ago.

Rebecca Watson's effort at making a career out of her purported victim status is just sad.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

The hysterical side-taking that ensued in the Skeptical world seemed largely to revolve around Watson's credibility, based on how many guys would really want to come onto her.

First, I'm sure some would.

Second, I don't know whether a still unidentified guy "maybe hit on" Ms. Watson in the elevator.

It's her attitudes as expressed in that video that I find disturbing.

Robert Campbell

[9thdoctor]

The hysterical side-taking that ensued in the Skeptical world seemed largely to revolve around Watson's credibility, based on how many guys would really want to come onto her.

True, Ms. Watson is not a good-looking woman. A five, tops.

Men are less apt to put the proper amount of energy into seducing unattractive women. They need to strap on the beer goggles tight to get interested. In other words, they’re treated as “easy lays”, but they do ultimately get attention…come 4 AM.

The problem is that her claim of receiving hundreds of rape threats was absurd. She’d blown her credibility well before Elevatorgate.

Moreover I am old school and unlike today's young women I would never make the first move except in an extreme circumstance, such as when I proposed to my husband.

Aww. Did you wait until February 29?

[caroljane]

Ninth, I will take the first part of your post as black comedy and answer your question.

I did not exactly propose. I just mentioned to him about a month after we met, that someday he would want to marry me. And I was right, as usual. He proposed in correct fashion, bended knee (no ring, I never wanted a diamond and neither of us had jobs) about 4 months after that.

[George H. Smith]

True, Ms. Watson is not a good-looking woman. A five, tops.

No offense, but I never liked this sort of evaluation -- unless, perhaps, it occurs in a bar between guys who have had a few too many drinks. You know, of course, that women have a way of rating men. They often do so on a scale of inches -- and that's a game I'd rather not play. 8-)

There is nothing wrong with Watson's looks, just as there is nothing wrong with Diana Hsieh's looks (which I rather like). The problem with each is their attitude and actions, not their appearance.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

Ninth, I will take the first part of your post as black comedy and answer your question.

Uh oh, I get the feeling I stepped in it. I thought I was mostly agreeing with you, you were saying it was about her credibility, and I thought you were saying guys wouldn’t normally “come onto her”, though I see that I filled in that it was because of her looks. My point was that it isn’t because of her looks, which aren’t that bad.

Now I’m not sure what your original point was. So men wouldn’t normally “come onto her”...because of her feminist babbling?

I did not exactly propose. I just mentioned to him about a month after we met, that someday he would want to marry me. And I was right, as usual. He proposed in correct fashion, bended knee (no ring, I never wanted a diamond and neither of us had jobs) about 4 months after that.

Ah, and here I was picturing the skullduggery of a Lady Widdrington in her quest to contract a matrimonial alliance with the wealthy Bishop of Bongo-Bongo. She was prepared to drag him to the altar even if it required chloroform. Until Webster came to the rescue...

http://wodehouse.ru/s4903.htm

[Robert Campbell]

There is nothing wrong with Watson's looks, just as there is nothing wrong with Diana Hsieh's looks (which I rather like). The problem with each is their attitude and actions, not their appearance.

Absolutely.

Robert Campbell

[9thdoctor]

The casus belli, as I’m seeing it, is a claim by a blogger named Rebecca Watson that in attending secularist conferences, which mind you top out at about 2,000 attendees, she’s had “hundreds of atheists” say one of three things to her:

Uh oh again, looks like my original analysis wasn’t quite right. She wasn’t claiming that hundreds of atheists had said these things to her at conferences, but that she’s gotten hundreds of troll comments on her blog. Why that should translate into the need for a sexual harassment policy at conferences was at issue. Troll comments are easily accounted for:

For all we know she’s doing it herself, via sockpuppets, just to get attention.

[Robert Campbell]

For all we know she's doing it herself, via sockpuppets, just to get attention.

ND,

The comments may just be "normal" trolling, as you noted.

But Rebecca Watson gives many indications of being a "narcifeminist," as I once heard it phrased.

And self-dramatizing is a key component of narcifeminism.

Robert Campbell