Nominalism
So there are various atheist and skeptical conferences, and Rebecca Watson talks at them and says things about sexism, and at the Dublin one she talks to people afterwards until 4 a.m. at which point she says she’s exhausted and going to bed, and she gets in the hotel elevator to do that and a guy joins her in the elevator (just the two of them, how romantic) and says
Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, would you like to come to my room for coffee?
And she says, mildly, “Guys, don’t do that.”
Quite right. Nobody should do that, really. In the afternoon, fine; in the evening, well, it depends, use your judgement; at 4 in the morning, unless you’ve both been making googly-eyes already, it’s just obnoxious, even if it’s not a pass. But maybe that’s just me. I can’t imagine doing something like that, because it would feel so incredibly intrusive and presumptuous – “Hey it’s four a.m. and you said you’re exhausted but hey wouldn’t you rather spend time with me than go to sleep?” I’m frankly not conceited enough for that, and don’t want to be.
There’s been a lot of drama and disagreement about all this over the last whatever, few days or a week or whatever it is, to which I’ve been oblivious. (I’m out of the loop.) But PZ did a post on it this morning, mentioning my eccentric neighbor along with Elevator Guy, and along came lots of men’s rights idiots to say lots of idiot things.
It’s not just about sexism, it is (as some commenters said) also about just plain manners. No, it isn’t manners to accost a stranger in an isolated place and ask for sex. (Ok for men that works, which is why there are cruisey parks. Fine. But for straights and lesbians, it isn’t manners.) (Maybe from men’s point of view it would be manners if only women would oblige. But to us it doesn’t feel like manners [sex workers excepted, obviously] so we mostly don’t oblige. You’ll see women doing that in movies and things, but it’s a male fantasy.)
PZ made a different point about manners: when you disagree with someone, name names. It’s passive-aggressive not to.
As Watson says, she loathes passive-aggressive behavior. So do I, and this is a fine example of it. Name names, always name names, and always do your best to be specific. It is right and proper as good skeptics to confront and provoke and challenge, and you have to be direct about it…
The skeptics movement has a surfeit of that passive aggressive attitude right now. As exhibit #1, I’ll mention the infamous “Don’t be a dick” speech by Phil Plait, which, while representing a good goal of asking for more tolerance, was turned into a flopping issue of disagreement specifically because it was all about tone, not substance, and because Phil could not found any of his arguments in specifics, keeping everything vague, and often cartoonish.
I too loathe passive-aggression. (I don’t know that neighbor’s name though, and I don’t want to.)
Been reading over my girlfriend’s shoulder of as she’s reading the comments on PZ’s post. It’s painful, and I’m not even reading all of it.
I hate so many people over there at Pharyngula right now.
There are two issues with this story as I understand it, the first one with the (hopefully just) clueless guy in the elevator and the second about whether Rebecca should have called Stef out on her comments in the forum that she did.
I don’t man in this day and age can be so clueless as to not know how inappropriate that encounter was, I have autism and completely lack social skills and tact, yet I still know better than to approach a woman like that, at 4am in a hotel.
The other issue I have no problem with, did she take Stef’s comments out of context? or alter them in any way to change the meaning?
I will admit I am biased in RWs favor here, as I really like her I don’t think its affecting my judgment though.
From what I’ve been able to piece together by reading 9,783 blog posts on the subject (along with 144,852 comments), it’s not cool to talk about some blog post at a conference talk. That makes sense. I don’t have to think about it too hard, though, because blog post is all I ever do. (Is it uncool to talk about a conference talk in a blog post? No; I think it’s universally agreed that that’s perfectly all right. It’s the other way around that’s ungood.)
I think the idea is also that RW is hugely enormously gigantically famous and the student is an unknown, so it’s as if Sarah Palin started giving speeches about some obscure liberal from a tiny suburb in Ohio.
There have been a bunch of stories about feminism of late, and I am getting pissed off about it. Mostly because I just don’t give a crap about it… a bit like the whole “best approach” debate – a big fuss over NOTHING.
It all seems to boil down to the fact that men find women attractive and women not liking that. Creepy? Is it still creepy if Rebecca is single and finds the guy really attractive (that’s possible right? a woman finding a man attractive?), is it still creepy then? I’m pretty sure Rebecca would have complained about it no matter what the time or place the way she has been lately.
I’m a little iffy on the ethics of calling out a blogger in a keynote, rather than blog to blog. But this is totally lost in the fuss about the man in the lift. Who is obviously a clueless privileged git and it staggers me how people are defending him. Yayz, he was not actually a rapist, should we give him a cookie?
Anybody who hasn’t read <a href=”http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/”>this classic piece</a> needs to do so ASAP.
Damn, linkfail. It looks right…
http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/
@Kenny: read that link, stat.
Nice link, Cath. I found this line particularly insightful:
Ask yourself, “If I were dangerous, would this woman be safe in this space with me?” If the answer is no, then it isn’t appropriate to approach her.
So on a dark night if a female (oops that’s a bad word now isnt it, yawn) is approaching me when nobody else is around, I should cross the street to make her feel more safe? And a black man should go to extra effort, right?
But if an unattended child whom you don’t know is approaching you in a secluded place, you should definitely offer the kid some candy, Kenny.
PZ says “Maybe we should recognize that when we interact with equals there are different, expected patterns of behavior that many men casually disregard when meeting with women, and it is those subtle signs that let them know what you think of them that really righteously pisses feminist women off.”
Cath’s link offers excellent and clear reasons the man in elevator incident was completely incorrect, too familiar, and inappropriate. PZ’s comment adds another, that colleagues at conferences operate as equals, or as equals and their trainee equals-to-be. To be approached as the elevator man approached Rebecca in a context of collegiality and equality makes the act even more incorrect, crude, and sexist. He was a man who disregarded her serious contributions and her status as a speaker at the conference, and added insult to injury by informing her about how she should take his message, that is, not the wrong way. That introduction in itself sends this message: “I don’t care what you think really, you are going to take this in your way, the woman way, the wrong way, but who cares I’m going to say it anyway.”
@Kenny Yes. Basically yes. Really. As a man who tries to be the best feminist he can be, everyday it is a challenge to remember that the privileges I was born with (white, tall, male, educated) are weapons that you have to actively choose not to use. A simple exchange that would be completely friendly or helpful or funny if all things were equal is not because things are not equal. My intentions can be as kindly and sweet as I like and yet have no bearing on the fact that almost every interaction I have in my daily life is a power struggle where I have been given the defacto advantage. It is an unfortunate reality but my reality is less unfortunate than most.
Look, Rebecca got hit on and she used it to once again bang on about feminism. Let me put my rapist cap on for a moment (being a man, I have one), a hotel at 4am is not an ideal place to rape someone. A single scream and you will see rows of heads poking out of doorways to find out what’s going on. Rebecca just needs to get over herself. Women want to be more involved in the movement but when you give them a stage they just bang on about how men are creeps and bring out the pitchforks if someone steps on an eggshell. Remember that woman who ran off to the bathroom crying after asking a question to the all-male panel? Fucking hell!
After Phil Plaits terrible DBAD speech, and now this rampant feminism, these atheist/skeptic meetings are becoming a joke.
OK-guys. Keep this in mind.
If you’re at a conference, and run into a woman who’s made a presentation, don’t even think of saying anything to her, lest she think you’re hitting on her.
In fact, make a point of not even getting onto an elevator where she’s present, and make sure that people see you getting off the elevator, so you can’t be accused of anything.
I’m so freaking glad I’m gay sometimes. This is one of them.
::reads Kenny’s comment::
Oo, I got bingo!
Hmm, so your inner rapist tells you that the elevator was not prime raping territory so RW has no basis for feeling like this was a case of creepy male privilege. It is my belief that a woman does not need to fear being raped before she can make a claim of misogyny.
And the asshole brigade descends on Butterflies and Wheels too. . we just can’t have nice things.
And Kenny, yes, you should cross the street. Christ, I’m gay (and it ain’t too hard to figure out after a few minutes with me) and I routinely do that because I empathize with how a woman must feel walking alone at night.
As a woman (and I’m just stating this from my point of view, not from the point of view of all women), there are polite ways of turning a man down that don’t involve viewing him as a rapist or being insulting. If you’re married, you have a ready made excuse. If not, simply respond that you just ended a relationship, you would find such behaviour unprofessional,or that you are flattered but have a policy of not going back to someone’s room without knowing him first. All of these are legitimate and polite, and yes, we ladies should still be polite. I understand why so many men are tired of feminism. It often seems that even by saying “hello” to a woman, a man will be found guilt of sexual harrassment.
Unless a man is truly crass, I am usually flattered by his attention even though I am married and have no intention of accommodating him. A slight laugh, smile, and polite excuse will maintain respect while no creating animosity between the two of you. I can already anticipate some of the responses: “Why should I be polite and respectful? He’s the one who is hitting on me in a professional setting.” “No woman should be made to feel as though she owes any explanation for refusing to go back to a man’s hotel room.” Feminism gave us equal rights, but I don’t believe that it negated the need for manners. Treat a man the way you would want to be treated, and you will be respected in kind. I am a feminist, but I don’t believe that we have the right (or should even desire)to turn men neutered beings who are so scared to be perceived as potential pedators that they fear to smile or speak to us first. Let men be men, and let us handle their advances, welcomed or otherwise, like mature ladies, not like little girls who have seen too many “To Catch a Pedator” episodes.
As long as Ladies are Polite then Men will be Men. And as soon as you stop being polite, men might get a clue and start acting like human beings.
I read this thread, so I followed Ophelia’s link to Rebecca Watson’s video. And when Rebecca says, “Guys, don’t do that,” I find Rebecca’s point is easy to understand and agree with.
KENNY
I AM DISSAPOINT
When I think back to what the atheism and skeptic movement used to be like, we all had the same goals and the same enemies.. but now since the DBAD speech and now the feminism that runs rampant at all of these events, they are just looking for enemies within. There is NO big deal about repression against women in this movement. There is NO big deal about atheists being too harsh on religion. I’m sick of reading on all these blogs these NON-STORIES that get 900 comments. And I realize I’m making it worse by adding to it, but I wish people in this movement would get over themselves. THIS DOES NOT MATTER!
Wake me up when someone actually does the slightest bit of harm to anybody. OK?!
Personally, Vitis01, I like men to be men. Male energy is a lovely, exciting thing to be around. There are three males in my house (my husband and two sons), I have two brothers, and most of my friends have been guys due to the fact that I enjoy the company of men. It’s difficult to explain, but I would imagine that most people know what I’m talking about when I say “male energy” (and no, I don’t mean anything New Agey or metaphysical, just a difference in intensity and type of conversation).
[blah blah blah more fake Stepford bullshit – edit]
…Unless a man is crass (and I worked as a bikini model in my youth, so I know just how crass some men can be), there is no reason to be impolite. NONE.
Josh: “And the asshole brigade descends on Butterflies and Wheels too. . we just can’t have nice things.”
Oh, and Hemant has waded in the fray at his blog to tell us all to “calm down” and can’t we all get along? A lot of Menz in the comments there.
Jenna: “My heart goes out to nice guys today who commit the “crime” of trying to chat up a woman and are greeted with a can of Mace and a cold stare”
Yeah, because there’s an epidemic of that, I’m sure.
I call bullshit on your entire post and fake persona. You’re a skeptic and a feminist and a former bikini model and a former victim of assault, and you just happen to believe that women should go back to the 50s and refrain from drinking, smoking, and swearing, and not be alert to dangers from men? Suuuuuure you are.
As an atheist and rationalist who happens to be female, I am disappointed everytime I see a Youtube clip of an atheist conference or a TED presentation made by a woman, psych myself up thinking that, just maybe, we’ve finally found our “Hitchens” in the movement, only to have the woman discuss nothing but feminism and how women are disenfranchised in the atheist community. Honestly, can’t we women do anything better than to complain about men?
[etc etc – edit]
I’m inclined to feel sorry for this man – I assume he felt rather nervous asking her for a coffee, and now he’s having her rejection of the invitation (though not his name, admittedly) discussed on the internet. Perhaps it wasn’t absolutely well judged to proposition her in the lift – but perhaps it was the first opportunity he’d had to talk to her alone.
[blah blah]
Would I like it if women began to act like ladies again? Yes, I would…and I think that most men would too, even if they won’t admit it to their p.c. friends. Men and women ARE different and should behave in different ways. I believe that if women were to act with more class, men would treat them accordingly.
[blah blah]
I think it’s fairly clear why so many women talk about feminsim, so many non-white people talk about racism and so many gay people talk about homophobia: it’s not because we all have one-track minds and are incapable of addressing other subjects, it is because we are still treated like undesirables regardless of the quality of our work; indeed, the better the work the less popular we are. The civil rights of all disadvantaged groups have only been won by constant activism and our bull-shit meters tend only to registe that which presents itself.
Here’s a cheat sheet for the guys who don’t understand.
Polite things to say in the elevator to a speaker at a conference you are attending after a discussion at 4 AM:
1. Thanks for staying up to hold that discussion. I really enjoyed it.
2. I’m disappointed that the discussion had to end so soon. Is there any chance I could email you a few questions I had that weren’t answered?
3. Thanks for holding the discussion. I’m really looking forward to your talk on <Date XYZ>.
Impolite things to say in that situation:
1. Would you like to have sex? [Note: Whether you say it in as many words or you use innuendo, it’s still impolite.]
2. Would you like to go on a date?
3. Have you been saved yet?
4. Would you be interested in purchasing a timeshare at a condominium in Honolulu?
Who are you, seriously? Are you from Stepford? WTF?
I understand that Nick, but it does tend to make the “other side” view your group as being incapable of addressing other more pressing issues. Ms. Hirsi-Ali presenting a talk on honour killings and FGM would be welcomed and beneficial to an atheist conference because it deals with abuse done in the name of religion. A talk on male-female social interaction, in my opinion, is a waste of time at a conference which is dealing with issues that concern the survival of our species. Ms. Watson’s talk would had been fine in a current issues/philosophical ethics class or conference, not at one which deals with atheism vs. religion in the modern world. Admit it: did you find her talk to be nearly as interesting or applicable to atheism as Dawkins’ talk? I certainly didn’t, and I’m a woman. I would LOVE to pick up a book on atheism written by a woman, read it without looking at the name of the author, and not be able to guess the sex of the author until viewing the back cover sleeve photo, but it hasn’t happened yet.
The fuck? Why do you “assume” that he actually wanted to “ask her for a coffee” (he could have meant that, of course, but it’s not a foregone conclusion)? Why do you assume such good faith, golly-shucks intentions on the part of a guy who asked Watson to come to his room at 4 a.m. after a night of drinking in a goddamned elevator after she’d already said she was tired and that she didn’t appreciate being sexualized?
What in living hell is so difficult for you people to understand that this is an anxiety-provoking scenario for a lone woman? Do you even live on the same planet as the rest of us?
And what the fuck is up with you women not getting this? I’m a fag and I get the corollary about walking alone on a street/being in a bar and having to be on my guard against getting fag-bashed. Jeezis.
I call bullshit on you. You’re trolling.
<blockquote>Should women be alert to the dangers of men? Of course, but not to the point of treating every hopeful suitor as a potential rapist./blockquote>
Ooh, I know! *waves hand frantically* Let’s just ask the rapists to wear a big red R on their foreheads! Then we’ll know which men to treat as potential rapists!
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, Jenna, but you’re a priss. Rebecca wasn’t impolite to the man, that I’m aware of. As Ophelia points out, she just mentioned the incident later and said, “Guys, don’t do this.”
You were the victim of sexual assault and you don’t grok that she might have felt a tad uncomfortable and put upon being alone on an elevator with a guy who’s hitting on her, a guy obviously ignoring her boundaries (she’s made it clear she’s tired, etc.), at 4am?
I’m with Screechy Monkey. You’re full of shit.
Sorry ’bout the blockquote fail. And now the font type is all messed up and I’ve no idea why.
Josh, I love you. Honest to Cthulhu, I wish I was a gay man. I would so throw myself at you. But not in a way that disrespected your boundaries.
Josh – I assume he may have had rather more than coffee on his mind, but – you say that I assume his intentions were good – I don’t see why wanting more than coffee means you have bad intentions – unless (which I assume you don’t) you think women will be damaged by rather casual sex – and I think there is a difference between not wanting to be sexualised and being completely averse to sexual overtures.
Don’t worry girl. The only boundaries I have are No Synthetic Fabric Sheets on my Bed, and I only Wear Cotton Shirts. Everything else is negotiable.
Srsly, how the hell does anyone, man or woman, straight or gay, get out into the world and live without recognizing the kinds of things Watson is talking about? This isn’t even Advanced Feminism. It’s Don’t be a creep/potential rapist/basher 101.
I think there is a difference between a potentially very hot hook-up invite (for men or women) and being in an elevator at 4 a.m. as a lone woman and being “invited” to “have coffee.” Especially after she got done with a talk in which she objected to being sexually objectified. I can totally see why this freaked Watson out, even if she is (and I don’t know this) amenable to risque invitations. This isn’t hard.
Look – I’m a guy, and a gay guy. In my social milieu, the rules are looser, to say the least. By most standards, the average gay man is, well, incredibly forward in gay bars when it comes to inviting other men to share time with them. I’m used to this, and I’ve participated in it. But I know the difference between the rules of etiquette in a fag bar, and the feeling a straight woman would have in Watson’s circumstance.
To Josh: am I a troll? No, simply because someone has an opinion different from your own does not make him/her a troll; it makes him/her a dissenting voice. Just because, when I view an atheist conference, I would rather spend my time and attention on speakers who are commenting on issues concerning religion and politics rather gender issues does not make me a troll or less of a woman. Just because I think that we women have a role in portraying ourselves as ladies and treating people with respect and proper manners does not make me a “Stepford wife.” I hope that clears that up.
[edit]
Was Ms. Watson justified in her concerns for her safety? Possibly, I wasn’t there. All I said was that there are ways, much better ways, to turn a guy down which do not create animosity AND maintain your personal rights. If that makes me a “priss,” then so be it.
Yes, it does.
Okay, Josh, I’ll bite: why? Why does saying to young women, “Hey, don’t go out, burp, swear, drink a bottle of vodka, act uncouth unless you want men to treat you like a trashy chick that you’re portraying yourself to be” indicate having been brainwashed? I wouldn’t want my sons to act like pigs, and I don’t want them to bring home pigs of either sex as their future partners. It’s about respect. If you don’t respect yourself, no one else will. Seriously, have we sunk so far as a species and society that telling people to act like decent human beings is somehow a horrific command? Did men respect women before they began making out with each other on “Girls Gone Wild” videos and drinking and swearing worse than sailors? I believe that they did. Perhaps, and please do not take this the wrong way, as a gay man you might not be privy to exactly how hetero men view women for relationships and such; just as I would not dare to even attempt to speak on how gay men view a potential long term partner and what separates him from Mr. One Night Stand. I am simply speaking from what I have experienced and seen. Guys may like to get laid by Ms. Wild Child, but few are going to bring her home to meet mother (oh man, I went all Stepford again, didn’t I?).
Are you done projecting your fantasy objections yet, Jenna?
1. Nice homophobia
2. Just shut up. No one believes your sock-puppet troll bullshit.
“. I can totally see why this freaked Watson out, even if she is (and I don’t know this) amenable to risque invitations. This isn’t hard.”
I would hazard a guess that it’s not that common for her. If a man so much as looked at her the wrong way we would hear about it. We already hear about every little thing that doesn’t matter from her.
Are you done with simply hurling insults Josh? Is it too difficult to present ACTUAL reasons for your statements rather than to ridicule? Welcome to the concept of the conversation. I hope that you begin to understand how it works.
And fuck you too, ma’am, very kindly.
WOW Josh, calling me homophobic and referring to my statements as “bullshit” (profanity is usually the sign of a childish individual who cannot refute the opposition with reason and therefore must resort to vulgarity. Mazel tov, my friend, you’ve shown your true colours).
[blah blah blah random stuff about Girls Gone Wild blah]
“All I said was that there are ways, much better ways, to turn a guy down which do not create animosity AND maintain your personal rights”
There was something wrong with the way she turned him down? Do tell. How did she turn him down? What was wrong about it? You seem to be privy to something the rest of us haven’t been told.
She mentioned the incident later (and you’ve admitted you weren’t there and she may “possibly” have been within her rights to be concerned for her safety), without naming the man, and said, “Guys, don’t do this.”
And this equals racism, in your book. I repeat, you’re full of shit.
Self-correction: embarrassing (it’s almost 5:00 am here).
Josh – I’m sure if everyone had been saying she was making a fuss about nothing I’d have argued the other way!
Stacy, I know that in your book I’m a “pris,” but must you use vulgarity? Seriously, if I were a Christian, I’d print out this page and bring it to church and ask the parents if they want their kids to use filthy language like the atheists or be nice, good little Christian kids?
[blah blah]
Bringing attention to this man’s failed attempt to simply ask her for a date, perhaps while he was in the audience, she shamed him and did not act in a very compassionate manner. He asked her out, she turned him down, and that should had been the end of it. Instead, this poor schmuck, in addition to having the world know that he had been rejected, now has been presented as the “Convention Creeper.”
[edit]
Bottom line: if you’re a speaker of either sex at an atheist conference, SPEAK ABOUT ATHEISM AND RELATED ISSUES! Don’t turn it into “Top Ten Things Guys Do That Creep Me Out,” okay? That’s all I’m asking.
I am unable to think of any reason for the answer to ever be anything other than “no”. That she would not be safe is in the first premiss.
“Bottom line: if you’re a speaker of either sex at an atheist conference, SPEAK ABOUT ATHEISM AND RELATED ISSUES!”
No, that’s not “all you’re asking”. That’s you shifting the goalposts.
Watson discussed Elevator Guy on a video. A video she made. She was *later* asked BY CFI to speak on a topic related to feminism, and spent exactly two minutes at most mentioning this subject.
“Bringing attention to this man’s failed attempt to simply ask her for a date, perhaps while he was in the audience, she shamed him and did not act in a very compassionate manner.”
1) Why would he have been in the audience? The incident happened in Dublin. She did not mention it there.
2) Why would her saying, “Guys, don’t do this” have shamed him? You think it’s somehow “shaming” for a man to learn that propositioning a woman who is alone with you in an elevator at 4am makes her uncomfortable?
3) How about his lack of “compassion” (empathy, rather) in ignoring the fact that she’s exhausted, and that THEY’RE ALONE TOGETHER ON AN ELEVATOR AT 4 AM and she might feel cornered?
“What equals racism in my book is if you associate an entire group of people as being potential perpetrators of a crime due to the actions of a minority of that group. ”
Look, you blithering idiot, a woman cannot know in advance if a given man is going to turn out to be a rapist or not. That does not mean she thinks all men are rapists.
“Stacy, I know that in your book I’m a “pris,” but must you use vulgarity?”
Yes. I must. Go fuck yourself, you oblivious asshole.
I haven’t been keeping up with the ruckus about this on other blogs, and from what I see here I’m glad I haven’t. Between Kenny’s insistence that this is “nothing,” which it clearly isn’t from the response a mere four minutes of video has generated, and Jenna going on about how women need to be polite and won’t Watson kindly shut the hell up, it all smacks of the way other primate social groups react when a low-status group member acts in a manner incompatible with the established hierarchy: by attacking. As a 23 year old male who has imbibed negative influences from the cultural milieu, I appreciate voices like Watson’s reminding us that humaneness is more than just being an atheist and that freethinkers do not automatically acheive enlightenment or get a free pass just because we know homeopathy is bullgeschichte. I also find it interesting that Watson’s and Plait’s speeches are the only notable things that seem to have come out of these conventions. Oh boy, a speech by Dawkins about atheism to atheists. Who’d have thunk it? It’s great and all, but let’s not demand stagnation just because… well, the objections aren’t clear, it mostly seems like “just because” as far as I can tell.
(btw, anyone else suspicious of “Kenny” and “Jenna”? Sounds like a single author picking pseudonyms to me.)
In conclusion, I agree with Polly-O!.
p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }
First off let me just say that I think lift guys actions were at best ill considered and at worst creepy especially as she is married. Though this has been discussed ad nauseum so I wont go there.
This is a plea to the posters on this site, can’t we address the points if we disagree with another poster and can we please take posters at their word whatever suspicions we my have. Sorry if I’m being a little petty here but I like this and Jerry Coyle’s site because I find it more mature than the bear pit that is PZ’s site and sometimes even Richard Dawkins site. Where instead of addressing the points of someone you’re debating it turns into a name calling contest along with ‘fuck off and die’ and ‘Shut the fuck up’ ‘fuck off troll’ etc. It pains me when atheist behave in such a immature manor, we are suppose to be the rational ones remember. I’m no precious flower as I like rigorous debate as much as most people here just not the schoolyard kind. Maybe it’s because I’m getting on a bit but I’m comfortable here please don’t scare me away.
Thanks for reading.
Why would this guy feel any shame? He’s got an endless stream of people reminding us of how awfully fragile his ego is, how much he must have suffered just raising the courage to proposition a woman at 4 am in an elevator and that Ms Watson is an evil manhating b*tch.
Fuck EG and his buddies. I wonder how many women you’ve convinced to just ‘deal with it’ and ‘get used to it.’ Must be a fine line of work.
This will be my last post on this topic, not because I was “p-owned” or what have you, but simply to due how revolting and vile some of the people (you know who you are) are here. Rather than fight with logic and reason, they choose to use foul language and ad hominem attacks. I enjoy a good debate, but no debate can be had with people who believe that all they have to say is “Fuck you, idiot,” and they’ve won the day.
[and more of the same – edit]
Nice to see what your priorities are, Ms Jenna. Now kindly go back to the church. Your indifference to women’s issues and your obsession with a Stepford Wives style universe are antithetical to what this blog and (I would hope) most atheists stand for.
@Kenny 5
“It all seems to boil down to the fact that men find women attractive and women not liking that. Creepy?”
No, it might just seem like that to you. It all boils down (chemistry-wise) to being clued into each other, with both women and men liking each other. Not about women not liking that at all.
Rebecca would have complained about it no matter what the time or place the way she has been lately.
Reeks of confirmation bias? Could be clouding your perspective. Perhaps? I can only surmise, of course, from this sentence.
Jenna said:
Sorry, you don’t get to police what others talk about. And you’re wrong too. Atheism has too many men, and not enough women. If we want to fix this, it is inevitable that we end up talking about sexism, and about creepy guys hitting on women.
@Jenna 23.
“…It seems as though the more we try to drink, smoke, and swear like the boys, the less regard they have for us as respectable human beings”.
So you seem to think that men have less regard and respect for women if the latter ape the formers’ social behaviour. Meaning: that it’s respectable for men to drink, smoke and swear, but not so for women? Why too would men be considered ‘respectable’ when they drink, smoke, and swear, when all these habits are mostly bad for one? However, irrespective of how bad thy are for one, why would men be considered superior over women in the consumption of same? We all know it’s a man”s world. But, really, you are only feeding into the difference between men and women and the assumed superiority even further by thinking that women would be less respectable human beings if they behaved in the same manner. You say you are a feminist? Well the above quote doesn’t exactly tie in with” If we’re going to be equal (which is what feminism is supposed to be about), then let’s treat men with the respect that we would like receive from them”.
It must be nice to live in some of your worlds where women have no need to fear men, and a woman isn’t assaulted every 3 seconds. One in four women have been the victim of sexual assault in this country alone. How can some of you be so fucking clueless.
Jenna at 51:
Wish granted since feminism is related to atheism and skepticism. If anything skepticism and atheism are about applying rational criticism, logic and reason to sacred cows and if we are going to do so to the ones belonging to others we damn well better be prepared to do so to our own. That includes our deepest thoughts, opinions and ideas about gender, sex, race and so forth. It is not limited to just religion and homeopathy.
And yet you don’t want to return to the 1950’s, during which time men presumably treated women with respect since that was the before the advent of drunken, swearing little whores making out with each other in clubs on videotape. Do you perhaps have another time period in mind?
Yeah, I get that you’ve wrapped your posts in deference to manners and politeness but I have to call bullsh!t on that. By that I mean manners, not you specifically. Manners are bullsh!t since they are simply a way for one (usually privileged) group to bully another (usually disenfranchised). If you doubt this simply look at every single revolution or rights movement in history. It’s never that the browbeaten party is undeserving of equality, just that they ask for it so rudely. They’re just so uncouth.
Does that mean that we have to be impolite to each other? Not at all. However, I’m not exactly sure how a woman refraining from going out and drinking, smoking and swearing equals her being polite. I can’t really see how a young woman having fun at a club who, maybe unwisely, decides to make out with another young woman and remove clothing on video is impolite. Also, I’m not sure how a woman turning a man’s advances down and later making a YouTube video that recounts the event equals impoliteness. That last one especially since RW might could have called the man out specfically instead of only referencing his actions, thus preserving his dignity and letting him maybe rethink his future actions.
Politeness simply means treating other with at least minimal respect from the outset, to be adjusted later as need be. Do you honestly treat people, particularly women, with disrespect simply because they go to bars and drink, smoke and/ or use “foul” language? If that really is the standard you use, I think it rather disingenuous for you to act surprised and offended when people refer to you as a “Stepford Wife”.
Huh? Where did Kenny and Jenna come from? And why?
Selected bits of Jenna that sound ridiculously fake:
@ 19
Who talks like that? Who says “we ladies” and means it? But would also be reading B&W?
Who confuses following a woman into a hotel elevator at 4 a.m. with “saying ‘hello'”? Who gets all worried about the man in that situation, and construes the woman as being rude without even knowing what the woman said or did?
Oh forget it. It all sounds ridiculously fake. “Jenna” is a blatant troll. I might just delete all or most of what “she” said.
Jenna’s “last name” is Dubois. I take that to be a broad hint – Blanche Dubois, geddit? We’re all Stanley Kowalski.
STELLAAAAAA!!!!
David Leech – please don’t be scared away. It’s precisely because I don’t want this place to be a bear pit that I can’t invariably “take posters at their word whatever suspicions we may have.” I have no idea who “Jenna” really is but I think it’s vanishingly unlikely that “she” is genuine. Her comments reeked of fakery and provocation.
When someone talks of “ladies” it is normally in the context of being sexist. Unless they are in the UK and are talking about the female toilets.
Ophelia at 68:
I don’t know- they did sound like something my grandmother might have said. There was a good many “2+2=19” moments in her posts but that could be just as indicative of a sloppy thinker as a fake.
Then again, I’m not that experienced in dealing with internet trolls as others here probably are, so I could very much be missing certain tell- tale signs.
I don’t see anything wrong with what Ms. Watson did, either in using the elevator man as an example of bad behavior that men, even atheist men, all too frequently engage in. I also don’t find her using Ms. McGraw’s words and name in her speech as bad behavior either. I don’t happen to be in complete agreement with Ms. Watson in terms of her assumptions she made about what the other people doing – either the elevator man or Ms. McGraw, but I happen to think that it’s a good thing to both specify the behavior she’s talking about as she did and to identify Ms. McGraw by name in that circumstance. It allows others to verify what was said and check the context.
However, I don’t think that Jenna is a troll. Her opinions are not typical of posters here, but they aren’t uncommon in a more diverse group of folks. Personally, I think it’s important to allow dissenting voices to be heard and I don’t find the ad homs and accusations of trolling when someone posts a dissent to be reasonable. Yes, she was being provocative. So? Is there something wrong with being provocative?
A couple of things on this, since I was at the recent conference which has reignited this controversy.
First, I see the term “passive aggressive” being used a lot to describe certain behaviours. What is this intended to mean? Because by my understanding of passive aggressiveness, choosing to anonymise someone’s statement to spare them upset or embarrassment is not at all “passive aggressive”. Rather, being “passive aggressive” is a suite of behavioural traits which add up to a disorder, which include purposeful incompetence, shirking duties, procrastination etc. None of these seem to fit the individuals who are frequently accused of being “passive aggressive” in the atheist blogosphere.
Second, I think the upset here (at the CfI conference) was caused not so much because Watson called out a student leader who was sitting in the very room but because she did so in a way which I read as dismissive and a little rude. She did not confine her disagreement to the ideas expressed by the individual but took the opportunity to disparage her directly while she, in that moment, had no right of reply. In my view this was a misjudgment.
Ophelia.
Thanks, I’m not going anywhere. About Jenna, I know she seems implausible but is it really beyond the realms of possibility that there is maybe someone, somewhere with old fashioned views. As for calling her a troll is this some new type of troll that is sensitive and lacks stamina so clears off seemingly hurt. Wouldn’t a troll still be here enjoying the attention and the hornets nest they have just stirred up. I don’t know to be honest as I’m not up to date on trollish etiquette.
David Leach: actually, it’s far from uncommon for trolls to say their feelings are hurt, that the other posters are too mean and rude and vulgar and intolerant for the poor little troll to take anymore, and then flounce off dramatically! It’s a recognized phenomenon, called ‘doing a flounce.’ I’ve seen it countless times.
Jenna seems like an obvious troll to me. My guess is she’s Kenny’s sockpuppet. Kenny thought his views would have more credibility if voiced by a woman, so he invented her. It’s quite true that many people, including women, genuinely have Jenna’s views. You’re right about that, David. But what’s unlikely is that two ATHEISTS, including one woman atheist, would simultaneously descend on B&W and start vehemently agreeing with each other that feminism is irrelevant to atheism. Particularly since the woman showed up after the man and started blathering about the wonder of ‘male energy.’ She sounds like Christina Hoff Sommers, or Harvey Mansfield! Manliness is wonderful! *swoon*
Honestly, “we ladies”? Men respected us before Girls Gone Wild? It’s all our own fault for being such dirty, trashy tramps? Seriously?
Everything about Ms. Watson’s behavior in that elevator, and afterwards, seems correct to me, and that’s all I have to say about that.
David (good about not going anywhere!), no, not beyond the realms of possibility, but all that plus interested enough in B&W to keep commenting all night? It just doesn’t add up. The comments have a very tinny sound – very fakey. It’s as if they’d been clipped out of some 1955 Redbooks or something.
Beth, it depends. Yes actually I think there is something wrong with posting bullshit just for the sake of provoking; that’s why it’s called trolling. I don’t think Jenna was making a genuine case, I think “she” was playing silly games.
I crossed with Jenavir. I too thought Jenna might be Kenny, but they are at least not using the same IP, for what that’s worth.
I guess I don’t understand what’s supposed to be so wrong with it. These arguments cross every platform imaginable: blog posts and comments, books, articles, academic papers, Facebook, Twitter,… I don’t see why conference talks should be excluded. Someone writes a critical blog post, and someone else responds in a public talk. The first person can respond by any number of means, including another blog post, which will likely be read by more people than were in attendance at the talk. The only problem I have with discussions crossing over from, say, FB (or I guess a talk that isn’t recorded), is that the actual remarks aren’t available to me to evaluate. But aside from this issue I don’t get where this idea that this shouldn’t be done is coming from.
To me it was the dismissive and personal nature of the criticism. I don’t think it was a huge deal, and I think it has been blown out of proportion, but if I were the student under attack I would have felt not only disagreed with but maligned.
My personal take on RW’s Don’t Do This comment, is that it’s relatively minor, common sense kind of thing. I am actually kind of astounded at the response. I actually kind of disagree with a lot of the comments (including the sock puppets), it’s not a feminism thing at all, but rather common manners. There have been times when women have propositioned me in similar ways and it’s creeped me out – even though I am from the supposedly “stronger” sex, so ostensibly I shouldn’t feel threatened. (As an aside, I once had a five foot nothing girlfriend break my nose and kick me down a flight of stairs, so there goes that myth)
If anything the only problem I have is the focus exclusively on men vs. women. As I have said, I’ve been on the receiving end of the creepy invite, and I’m a dude. Yes, guys will do it more often (and that is bad, and not excusable at all), but shoving all guys into that box is actually pretty sexist.
Not that I’m accusing RW of doing that. It seems largely something that’s happened in the squalid comment threads that follow any of the posts on this. Sockpuppets do not seem to have a positive effect on the level of nuance in a debate.
I’m not totally convinced either way, but I can see the argument that it’s not an even playing field. I can imagine thinking it was a good idea at the time: you’re collecting nasty misogynist comments for a talk and then you add one to illustrate how that kind of thinking leaks into feminism itself, and you forget to realize that the commenter would be in the audience and might not be much pleased. Then I can imagine feeling acutely embarrassed afterward. (I can also imagine thinking it was a good idea at the time and then on second thought realizing it wasn’t, and not doing it, but that’s probably an optimistic kind of imagining.)
I wasn’t there, but McGraw’s criticism of the YouTube video (another platform!) was personal and dismissive in my view. But in any case, my response was specifically to an argument that didn’t concern the content of the remarks at all, but was about the platform. In addition to the fact that you haven’t substantiated your characterization of the content of Watson’s remarks, it’s entirely irrelevant to that discussion.
Fin – really. I’m startled by all the people who seem to be insisting “hey it’s perfectly fine for a stranger to say ‘let’s have sex.'” A stranger. Not someone you’ve been talking to and flirting with, but a complete stranger. In a confined space. That’s fine? Really?
Wouldn’t a troll still be here enjoying the attention and the hornets nest they have just stirred up.
I would have thought that a troll would have set up the trolling trail in motion, then said he/she was out of there quickly, so as to subsequently avoid too much suspicion and then to lap up commotion and confusion troll trail created by them from without.
James –
It means what you said – it describes certain behaviors. Do you not know what the behaviors are? Is that what you’re asking? Or are you asking why is it not used in some other way?
Jenavir and Ophelia.
Thanks for your replies I’m just a bit naive I guess.
I didn’t read it in that way, but it wouldn’t legitimize similar behaviour by Ms. Watson even if that were the case.
I mistook you, and thought you were discussing this specific case which is the topic of the blog post.
I had assumed that people here would have familiarized themselves with what was said before commenting on the case. I clearly should not have made the assumption. Watson made remarks which were essentially (this is not verbatim): “These are the comments of someone who knows nothing about feminism.” (so that’s, to me, directed at the individual, not the comments themselves) and the words “anti-woman” were used to describe these views, and have been repeatedly in other blog-posts and comments since then (see http://skepchick.org/2011/06/on-naming-names-at-the-cfi-student-leadership-conference/ for example). This seems to me extreme and not a way to promote discussion but to silence disagreement. I see nothing that can legitimately be called “anti-woman” about McGraw’s comments.
My question then is how does it apply to someone choosing to anonymise someone to spare them upset and embarrassment? None of the behaviours, to my mind, encompass that decision, so I don’t see the term being relevant in this case. I’m also thinking of times Stedman has been called “passive aggressive” for statements which are, to my mind, similarly unrelated to the meaning of the term.
But of course no platform is an even playing field in itself. If you post about someone’s tweet or whatever, your post isn’t a level playing field, but the wider world is in this case: McGraw has a large number of public venues (more public than a conference talk) in which to reply. When I think about it, I’d prefer that someone talk about me when I’m there. Another problem I have with FB is that if people are talking about me there it feels like it’s behind my back. I’d vastly prefer that people say what they have to say to me to my “face,” even if I’m momentarily not in a position to respond.
I kind of suspect many of the people (not you, of course) arguing that this was bad form are really more angry with Watson about the video, and wouldn’t be railing about how supposedly inappropriate this is under other circumstances. I can’t know, but I suspect it.
In addition, SC, Watson clearly implied an intent to deceive on the part of Ms. McGraw, as she does again in her blog post on the issue: “I pointed out that she posted a transcript of my video but conveniently left off the fact that I had already expressed my desire to go to sleep.” (my emphasis). This is another example, in my mind, of not dealing with the arguments but with the person and their imagined intentions.
Remarks that are personal and dismissive are perfectly legitimate. The point is that your criticism of Watson is hypocritical.
Oh, FFS. I was discussing specifically the issue of criticizing a blog post in a conference talk, regardless of the content of that criticism. It was that discussion into which you inserted your comment.
I was familiar with the remarks. I was talking about your characterization of them – “rude,” “malign,” an “attack.”
I agree with Watson’s assessment. McGraw’s remarks were clueless and antifeminist (though not intentionally). The fact that you can’t see it shows your own cluelessness. And the notion that publicly criticizing someone’s post is not engaging in an argument but an attempt to silence disagreement makes no sense.
In any case, again, I wasn’t talking about the content of anyone’s remarks, and there are thousands of posts about that which I have no interest in repeating. If you have something to say that’s relevant to the platform issue, then say it; otherwise stop interfering with that conversation by introducing these extraneous issues.
SC – true. I don’t know…it makes me feel uneasy, but that’s pretty much just seat of pants flying. Maybe it’s just that it feels too junior high for a situation where you’re standing up facing an audience.
James
Because it’s the kind of thing that looks “nice” at first glance but actually is the opposite. The result of not naming names is not that no one is suspected but that everyone is. That was how Phil Plait’s DBAD talk played out.
Since I don’t know what’s in your mind I can’t respond. I suppose I can explain what I mean by it though: I use it to name the way Stedman says how good he is while at the same time throwing gnu atheists under the bus. He likes to draw attention to his benevolence but in fact he’s as hostile as the next person. I consider that passive-aggressive. To me it means being aggressive while trying to pretend to be saintly. Having it both ways.
I suppose I think that’s what other people mean, but I can’t swear to it.
SC – your response is unnecessarily aggressive and impolite. I am not attacking you or your position – I am simply stating my opinion and seeking to support it as you requested.
I do not agree that personal and dismissive remarks are legitimate in discussing an important issue in a public forum, There is no hypocrisy in my remarks – if I read McGraw’s comments as personal or dismissive I would take her to task too. I simply reject this characterization of her remarks.
I acknowledged that I made a mistake in interpreting your comment, and you respond in this aggressive way. Why? I was merely seeking to state that I had misunderstood you.
There is a big difference, in my mind, between calling someone’s remarks “clueless and anti-feminist” (regardless of the accuracy of that characterisation) and calling them “someone who knows nothing about feminisim” and their remarks “anti-woman” (which is not the same as “anti-feminist”).
I have not questioned Watson’s right to criticize anyone’s post in a measured and reasonable way. I take exception to her critiquing an individual and their perceived level of knowledge on some subject and on her extreme characterization of that person’s views. You are misrepresenting my position.
I am expressing my views on the content of the original post. They are entirely relevant to the discussion and I will continue to do so. The fact that it is not relevant to the side-issue of interest to you is not relevant to me. I will continue to comment her and present my views regardless of your approval or disapproval, and your unwarranted aggression.
Ah. This I would simply call hypocrisy. It’s not a characteristic of passive-aggressive behavior, which has a specific diagnostic definition within psychology which this description does not fit.
But there’s a vernacular use of passive-aggressive, James, isn’t there? Maybe that’s unfortunate; maybe it’s displaced or muddied the diagnostic definition, but it’s pretty common, as far as I know. I’ve certainly always used it in a vernacular way not a diagnostic one. I try not to diagnose people! Not qualified.
Yes, but I still don’t think that’s how it’s properly used. I think it is a term that is over-used and poorly-understood, particularly in our community, which seems to enjoy outright aggression (PZ is extremely aggressive, rhetorically, for example) and often have a problem with politeness and kindness, such that that often when one seeks to be kind or simply respectful is labelled “passive-aggressive” on very flimsy grounds.
Perhaps it’s my British Public School background, but I put a high priority on argumentative rigor alongside a certain level of decorum. I do not like the tendency I see for people who seek to be decorous being labelled (inaccurately) “passive-aggressive”. If Watson had specifically framed her remarks as criticism of a set of ideas, and said “I am choosing not to name the individual to spare them embarrassment, but I do feel it important to address this issue”, and then confined her remarks to a reasoned rebuttal of her points (rather than a personal dismissal followed by an extreme characterization of her position) then I would have no problem with it. This is not in my mind remotely aggressive, passive or otherwise. It’s simply polite, reasonable and generous, which are all qualities I value in individuals and in discussions.
We disagree about both of these questions and about Watson’s comments. And I don’t believe you misunderstood my comment. I think you took one sentence of it out of context to give yourself a platform to repeat the comment you had already made @ #72 so there would be a better chance of someone replying, which would give you more opportunities to bash Watson, and so on. But then I don’t believe much of what you say. I think you’re intellectually dishonest and in light of past interactions with you I question your motives. You’re also whiny. I’m not going to continue this exchange.
Rebecca Watson was in a foreign country and should have been afforded the courtesy of some privacy, especially when she was going to her room. The person who approached her was obviously a visitor as well, the fact that he was staying at the hotel. So should have known better than to try to pick her up in the wee hours of the morn. It’s not liked they spent time alone together during the course of the conference. He was totally out of order.
Well, James, maybe so, but I already don’t know what you mean, because you’re talking in generalities.
Who, what, where, when?
I don’t actually think that’s true. I think it’s when “one” seeks to tell other people they are not being kind or respectful enough that the passive-aggressive label comes out.
See above.
Oh, yes:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/oh_no_another_outbreak_of_moon.php
Comment #208.
Also note #210 where I show James’ duplicity. He is up to no good.
This is really interesting…
Can you give a single example of that? I sure as hell can’t. It’s not being polite that gets gnu atheists riled. We don’t run around flagging atheist posts for being too polite. We challenge posts that accuse us of being too rude. There’s a big difference. There’s a massive difference. It’s all this self-righteous (passive-aggressive) lecturing and posturing that gets up our collective nose. It’s also the way the party of nice always helps itself to the moral high ground, the way you just did.
Is labelling something “passive aggressive” sometimes an example of passive aggressiveness?
It does seem to be widely used, generally without a clear definition of what it constitutes (such as the one Ophelia provided).
“I crossed with Jenavir. I too thought Jenna might be Kenny, but they are at least not using the same IP, for what that’s worth.”
I was waiting for that. It’s really amazing there might be two separate people who don’t care about this stupid story. I’m sure it won’t be long before people like Rebecca gin up another non-story that gets a million comments. She will do a video on it, multiple blog posts, talk about it on stage and act like everyone in the atheist movement should care. Well fuck that. I’m sick of people like Mooney and Watson acting like we should all adopt their values. Fuck ’em.
Ah no, Kenny, you said a good deal more than just that you don’t care about this stupid story. (And if you don’t care about it, it’s odd that you read this post and commented on it.)
OK I care in the sense that it pisses me right off when other atheists go on a crusade and try to set a litmus test and say we should all share these values and practices.
But do I think there is a problem in the way men are treating women in the atheist movement? Absolutely not. So I don’t care!
Then leave. Just leave.
You don’t care; noted. I don’t care that you don’t care. That seems like the end of that discussion.
Sure whatever, I’ll leave so long as I don’t come back to people talking about how I’m sockpuppetting the non-story.
This is actually a fascinating thread for me. I’ve been propositioned in an elevator late at night. I’ve even had somewhat similar experiences when speaking at a conference. I think Rebecca responded just fine to that guy, much as I would in a similar situation. But I don’t agree with her regarding the sexism/feminist slant she feels that such approaches imply. As someone earlier commented, it’s just as creepy when a woman does it to a man, or presumably, when a woman does to another woman or a man to another man.
Let me just state that while I’m an intelligent person, I often don’t have a clue what’s going on socially/politically between other people. In fact, I find my job easier to not even attempt it. I work in an engineering research center, where many of my colleagues have no better social skills than I and some are considerably worse. Social awkwardness is my general assumption about such clumsy attempts at getting to know someone better.
That doesn’t make it less creepy, but it does allow me to assume that such a person was thoughtless rather than calculating for predatory purposes, which I generally find makes for a more pleasant experience. But that’s me. There is also the possibility that Ms. Watson may have picked up on subtle non-verbal clues that indicated otherwise. I don’t know. At any rate, I think she was fine to use it as an example of behavior she would like to see less of from gentlemen in attendance at atheist conventions.
I also agree with Mr. Croft, although I was born, raised, and never left the midwest US. and I disagree with S.C. that ‘ personal and dismissive remarks are legitimate’. I notice that after Mr. Croft made personal and dismissive remarks about what S.C. said, S.C. decided he would terminate the conversation. Now, I support S.C.’s decision in terminating the conversation at that point. But I support his decision [i]because[/i] I find personal and dismissive remarks NOT to be legitimate in a public debate.
This is a very ungenerous reading of my post, which is characteristic of the exchanges I have had with you in the past.
I reread comment #208 and didn’t find any evidence of a personal attack. It’s not up to my usual standards of decorum, I grant you. Where I did fall short of my own standards was in comment #238, where I called you “a joke”. This was a personal comment and I want to apologize for it. I am not always a perfect representation of my own values, and I try to be honest when I’ve missed the target. I did so there. I think in the context of a discussion where I was subject to continued abuse, including clear sexual prejudice, it’s understandable, but I don’t excuse myself.
I think your response here and on other topics I’ve discussed with you is evidence of dogmatic thinking. You demonstrate irrational thinking and an unwillingness to critically examine your own positions, combined with unwarranted aggression and unwillingness to continue the discussion You seem to think you are personally under attack when someone simply presents a different point of view. This is all evidence of dogmatism.
[Quoting a completely different person now, to wit, me – OB]
The comments and posts on this issue are themselves an example. Here, you write:
That, in my view, is simply false for the reasons I have outlined – a proper understanding of the term “passive-aggressive” does not fit a decision of someone to omit another’s name from a criticism. Such an act could be conducted for many reasons (for instance, as I’ve suggested, because they believe it might cause someone distress, or because they believe the introduction of an individual’s name might cloud clear discussion of the issue – the same sorts of arguments others have used for anonymization in this case etc.), most (perhaps all) of which I would not consider to be examples of passive-aggressive behavior. But the term is applied, and it is said to be loathed, in order to prevent people from engaging in that sort of behavior, even though it is an inappropriate term to use. This is what I would call “labeling something passive aggressive on very flimsy grounds”, and it is being used to critique people who are arguing for a different position on the basis that it is kinder and more generous.
Could you say what you felt was personal and dismissive in what I wrote? I’d appreciate knowing so I can avoid it in the future.
Mr Croft: I’m sorry. That was a mischaractorization. For some reason, I thought you had accused him of being a hypocrite in your previous response. On rereading, I realize I was mistaken about that. Instead, it was S.C. who was personal and dismissive as he ‘flounced’ from the conversation.
But you simply don’t not care, Kenny. Calling it a non-issue is just a way of demeaning Watson, as is evidenced by the energy you have put into denying the validity of Watson’s experience. For the record, said denial of the validity of Watson’s experience and the name by which you post are both similar to Jenna/’s posts, which is why it looks suspiciously like one of you is a sockpuppet. I’m not saying you are sockpuppeting, but if you want to be taken seriously (and not be thought to be a puppeteer) you should try fewer petulant insults that belie your stated motives.
Also, on the broad topic of how we engage and discuss with each other, and how the different ways of discussing things are perceived by different parties, I’d use the example of the term “tone troll” as evidence that some in our community do indeed have difficulty with recognizing a call for politeness as exactly that. In my view, the tone with which an argument is presented is an important topic of discussion, particularly if we seek to persuade people of our point of view (and thus bring more into a secular rationalist movement). There is empirical evidence about what works and does not work when it comes to persuasion, and I think we should heed it. But that message is often rejected with a cry of “tone troll!” See these examples:
http://goodreasonblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/tone-trolls.html
http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_troll
This is not to say that there isn’t a legitimate charge of “tone-trolling”. When someone seeks to ignore or attempts to defeat a perfectly cogent argument simply because it is expressed with a derogatory tone this is a clear fallacy. But frequently (as in the examples above) the term is not used in this way, but as a blanket criticism (and implicit dismissal, as if some argument has been made simply by application of the “tone troll” label) of any argument about tone whatsoever. I think this is unwise and often unthinking.
I’m calling every single one of these sexism stories hitting the blogger headlines with 999999 comments a non-issue. Every last one. Female is a bad word, woman running to the bathroom crying at atheist conference, somone praising the attractiveness of bloggers, asking for sex at 4am. I await the next episode of a guy stepping on eggshells. Fucking joke. I’ll say it again, wake me up when something bad actually happens.
I figured Jenna might have been a guy too, but I definetly didn’t write his/her posts because I would never give christians enough respect to give them a capital C.
James,
For “passive agressive”, try substituting “constructive destructive.” I agree that the former term is not technically accurate, but there’s a reason that it seems (to many gnus) about right in describing anti-gnu accommodationists like Stedman and Mooney.
It’s not just hypocrisy that’s being pointed out, but a certain kind of hypocrisy that is similar to, but different from, true “passive aggressive”ness. There’s a pretense of being positive while being quite negative.
“Faux civility” is another relevant term.
James, you’re talking to two different people in 110. Did you lose sight of that?
Beth,
SC is not a he.
James
But this is just another example of exactly what I said – the label “passive-aggressive” (and tone troll) is used for people telling others to be nicer, not (as you said) for people just being nice. As I said, and quoted, your claim was
I dispute that. No, it’s not about being kind or respectful. It’s about telling others to be kind or respectful – which, of course (to belabor the obvious) implies that said others are unkind or disrespectful, and also positions the lecturer as morally superior.
Do you have any examples of people being labelled passive-aggressive for being kind or respectful?
The idea that women, or men, should not feel threatened by the actions of others, especially when there is no intent to come across as threatening is hardly much of demand.
Do you really not care about behaving decently ?
@Kenny: why are you making an issue out of a non-issue then?
And in the mean time, women are staying away from atheism or skepticism conventions. But there is no issue, and nothing bad is happening.
@James Croft: is the proper usage of the term “passive aggressive” really the most interesting issue for you here?
I was about to ask the same thing. Banging on about that, not the substantive topic at hand, is interesting. James, it’s this kind of thing that prompts people to question whether the commenter is —I’m sorry—-tone-trolling. It really agitates a lot of us when people focus on technicalities and form (often in high moral dudgeon) but don’t seem at all bothered by the very real incivility/malice exhibited by people who wear plastic smiles. If this is not your intent, please be aware that you’re not communicating clearly, and you are giving a strong impression of tone-trolling.
@Josh Slocum: I could also add that it could serve as a good example of the concept of “privilege”. Some people just don’t have the luxury to ignore all the other issues here and focus on using correct terminology instead.
I’m still hoping James will notice the difference between being Nice and telling other people to be Nice, and then notice the difference between gnus getting irritated about being told to be Nice and gnus getting irritated about people being Nice.
My take on the whole story is that we should take interest in understanding each others comfort zones. But in any case this particular story goes very deep into the least reflected areas of gendered patterns. Male “ought” to approach and the whole dynamics that is caused by that very “ought”. I wonder if we will ever be able to even envision a real reversal on this story, or better the disappearance of such stories and a replacement by relating that is formed of talking to each other in far less complicated and ultimately symmetrical ways.
I’m a she. And I made my reasons for terminating the exchange with Croft quite explicit: “…I don’t believe you misunderstood my comment. I think you took one sentence of it out of context to give yourself a platform to repeat the comment you had already made @ #72 so there would be a better chance of someone replying, which would give you more opportunities to bash Watson, and so on. But then I don’t believe much of what you say. I think you’re intellectually dishonest and in light of past interactions with you I question your motives. You’re also whiny. I’m not going to continue this exchange.”
I’ve shown evidence of his duplicity (post #210 at my link*), and his hostility towards the Pharyngula community is plain from what I quoted from him (which was rather far from “polite, reasonable and generous”). He is neither civil nor polite. His interest, for whatever reason, is in making the discussion about gnus’ alleged tone and scolding them. He does this constantly.
Indeed. Sastra is unfailingly kind and respecful, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone call her passive-aggressive, a tone troll, or anything similar. Because she isn’t.
Characteristically enough, all he had to say about the substantive topic concerned Rebecca Watson’s tone.
Croft has to know by now that no one cares about his opinions of our tone. And yet he repeats this line over and over because that’s his purpose: to be an annoying, whiny tone-scolder.
*Oh, and note that after his rethinking comment here, not only did he stroll over to Pharyngula to scold people on a thread that had been inactive for 10 hours, but when that post received no response he posted again a couple of hours later. It’s his M.O.
Kenny wrote:
Thanks for proving my point.
What do these refer to? Suffice it to say, I don’t trust Kenny’s dismissive reckoning of the events.
[…] and Comment Blog « Nominalism […]
(I said his criticism of Watson was hypocritical.) James:
McGraw:
If you think my saying James’ criticism is hypocritical is personal or dismissive, then either you disagree with his definition of personal or dismissive or you’re acknowledging his hypocrisy. Try again.
@Moewicus Well there is this:
http://friendlyatheist.com/2011/02/10/is-female-an-offensive-term/
And I can’t find a link about the woman who ran off crying. Basically she stood up and asked something about getting more women on the panel, blah blah, same old crap (because obviously there is a vast conspiracy in place to repress them), I don’t remember what the panel said that made her run off crying but it highlighted for me the percecution complex going on.
Kenny@130
The fact that something “made her run off crying” indicates to you that she had no real reason to be upset? Could you given an example of what you would consider to indicate real emotional distress?
@Dan M
I remember when Phil Plait was making blog posts after his DBAD speech in defence saying something about his friend who cried because she loved the speech so much with her being a christian and stuff. So his point was that many people in the skeptic community are upset about people criticizing their religion. And I know people on this blog won’t say we should change our tact because someone cries when religion is scoffed at. Well gender rights are different, sure.. but demonstrate that it’s a real problem in the atheist movement before making a big deal about it.
And Kenny being the brilliant thinker that he has, declares any example of sexism in atheist circles a non issue and then demands examples be brought forward to demonstrate sexism is an issue. How can skepticism fall with such amazing vanguards?
@Greg #15
I don’t think anyone has been accused of being anything. Actual events that happened in the elevator have been reported on and commented on. According to Watson, the only other person in the elevator did proposition her late at night–no accusations there, just the truth. The whole point or retelling the encounter is that apparently some people need to think a little about what constitutes a dangerous situation for others and stop themselves from unintentionally creating one. The elevator incident has thus become a teachable moment for the atheist community.
And being gay is great, I won’t argue with that!
@julian
Nope. You are right that I have completely dismissed the precious few examples of a couple of guys stepping on eggshells. They haven’t warranted the massive debate that is happening on all of these blogs. Wake me up when something serious happens.
Serious according to Kenny, that is, who’s judgement is the only one that really counts.
Kenny at 130:
I tried to find something on this event but couldn’t either. Kenny, can you not give any more information than that? Does anyone know what he is refering to?
So far you have given a very vague discription of this incident while dismissing it out of hand as a non- issue. Maybe it was someone overreacting but so far we only have your word on that. Given that, in post 114, you also dismiss David Eller’s comments at the AA Rapture Ram simply as “somone praising the attractiveness of bloggers” when his speech strongly implied that that was all atheist women like Laci Green and Cristina Rad really had going for them. Eller later realised his mistake, why people were upset and that they had good reason. Since you so easily waved that topic of legitimate concern away, I have to wonder if there might be more to the other story than you let on.
From 132:
I don’t think anyone has said that the problem was largely intentional but more of an issue of not applying proper skepticism to pervasive but unfounded preconceptions in culture and society. It’s an easy thing to miss, especially if you are within the group that benefits. Misogynistic and negative attitudes towards women have been the norm in society for quite sometime and anyone raised in such a society will undoubtedly pick up such attitudes. While that applies to skeptics just as much as anyone, we have the proper tools to truely examine them and so we should.
Atheism and skepticism has mostly been the proverbial line- up of “old white guys” but that has been changing in recent years. This is a good thing as it ultimately means that our message is getting out to people and more and more are receptive. Even if issues of feminsim were, as you say, a non- issue I think it a small price to pay to have to hear about a non- issue if that meant our numbers grow.
Yes I know what he is referring to but I really don’t want to engage him here. He’s not interesting. He keeps telling us to wake him up when something interesting happens – well in his terms that will be never, so let’s just not wake him up.
Ophelia: “No, it’s not about being kind or respectful. It’s about telling others to be kind or respectful – which, of course (to belabor the obvious) implies that said others are unkind or disrespectful, and also positions the lecturer as morally superior.”
It seems to me that this is what Ms. Watson is doing. She is telling male atheists to be kind and respectful of women. Why do you consider it fine for her to do so in that situation, but not okay for Phil Plait to do so regarding gnu’s in a similar position?
SC:
“If you think my saying James’ criticism is hypocritical is personal or dismissive, then either you disagree with his definition of personal or dismissive or you’re acknowledging his hypocrisy. Try again.”
That wasn’t the comment I was referring to as personal or dismissive. It was this one: “I think you’re intellectually dishonest and in light of past interactions with you I question your motives. You’re also whiny. I’m not going to continue this exchange.”
This statement is a personal attack as you call Mr. Croft whiny and intellectually dishonest. It’s hard to be more dismissive that to dismiss someone from the conversation all together. However, it’s irrelevant as I was mistaken about what Mr. Croft has said and you were not responding in kind to similar remarks from him.
I don’t think there is any legitimate reason to personally attack Mr. Croft and dismiss his arguments on the grounds that he’s whiny, or intellectually dishonest. Those may be legitimate reasons for you not to participate in a debate with him, but none of that is relevant to the debate itself. His arguments may or may not be worth responding to, but personal attacks do not add to the discussion. They just make it appear that you prefer to respond to dissent with insults rather than argument.
You claim that “Remarks that are personal and dismissive are perfectly legitimate.” I assume that in order to be legitimate, they must have some useful purpose. What do you perceive to be the purpose of such remarks? What was your purpose in making the remark that I quoted to Mr. Croft?
Beth, no, Watson isn’t telling male atheists to be kind and respectful of women. Saying “guys, don’t do that” isn’t passive-aggressive.
Beth, no, Watson isn’t telling male atheists to be kind and respectful of women. Saying “guys, don’t do that” isn’t passive-aggressive.
I have to disagree. I think that is exactly what Ms. Watson is saying. Why do you consider it okay and not ‘passive-aggressive’ for her to make that speech and feel the opposite about Plait’s “Don’t be a dick” speech?
I don’t understand what difference it is that you are perceiving between the gist of their speeches. It seems to me the main difference is whether or not you are in the group that is being asked to change their behavior to be kinder and more considerate of the other group.
@Beth: one difference is that Rebecca Watson gave specific examples, and Phil Plait to this day refuses to do so.
I agree. It would be very helpful if Phil Plait gave specific examples.
No – it was only one of two issues I raised. I have repeatedly given my take on the issue at hand (a take informed by actually being present at one of the incidents under discussion). Did you miss all the comments where I explained my view on the substantive topic?
But since being “passive aggressive” was the focus of the last part of the post, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask what is being meant by the term.
Beth, they’re not the same kind of thing. There are multiple reasons. Surely you can figure them out for yourself. I don’t have time to spell them all out for you. (One is that asking people not to be personally physically intrusive and creepy is not the same kind of thing as whatever tf Phil Plait meant by DBAD.)
James, could you at least register #118?
@SC I find discussing things with you to be quite strange. You seem to assume all sorts of terrible motives on my part while ignoring the substance of my arguments. As I pointed out above, I am not trying to avoid the issue here or defeat some argument by talking about the orthogonal issue of tone. Instead, the issue here is, from my perspective, one of tone (broadly construed). Therefore to ignore tone is in fact to ignore the central issue. I also want to say I don’t bear you any ill-will – I enjoy discussing these issues because they are important to me, and I would like to do so with you in as cordial a way as possible, if you’re willing to join me in that.
I was at the conference. I observed Watson while she made her talk. I thought it was an excellent talk, and broadly agreed with her analysis of the elevator situation (something you seem to misunderstand in #89). I blogged on how good a talk I thought it was. The issue which reignited this controversy was Watson’s way of raising McGraw’s comments: the forum in which she did it and precisely what she said about it. My argument is that the forum was appropriate but that she said things that were misjudged, which derailed her talk somewhat, cause unnecessary embarrassment to McGraw, and ignited this controversy.
The specific things I took objection to were: 1) naming the individual who was in the audience, when they could have been anonymized quite easily; 2) saying that that individual had no idea about feminism (which is irrelevant to the quality of her argument and unnecessary, quite different to saying her idea are “anti-feminist”); 3) using the term “anti-woman” to describe McGraw/her ideas, which seems to me extreme and unfair; and 4) insinuating a motive to deceive on the part of McGraw (“conveniently left out…”).
These are, to my mind, at least to some degree, matters of “tone”. They are precisely the things which made this issue explode. Being there, it was an uncomfortable moment even for me, even though I was not the one under attack (and I think the four points above amount to an attack).
I am someone who spends a lot of time at academic conferences, where my ideas are frequently critiqued in the most stringent ways, and where I apply the same critique to others. This is right and proper, indeed essential. But there is a way to do this that doesn’t embarrass and disparage the individual being critiqued. What I see happening here, which I have seen happen frequently in our community (I’ve given some examples in #109), is that an attempt to discuss a better, more constructive way of criticising people is dismissed as a call to be “passive aggressive” or is seen as “tone trolling”.
I honestly believe that the quality of discourse in our community is of central importance, both if we want to get to the root of these issues and if we want to encourage others to join us. There are ways to protect robust critique while also being respectful of each other – this choice is all too often presented as dichotomous and it is not. I am frustrated by the suggestion, in this case, that either you “name names” or you are “passive aggressive”. It’s simply nonsense! And I think our community should call out nonsense, even if it’s PZ who says it.
This issue is a very clear example of how Watson’s approach, and the response to it, whatever you think of it, has obscured the issue of sexism within our community. I submit that had she found a different way to express her critique of McGraw’s ideas we would be talking about those ideas, instead of talking about whether her criticism was appropriately framed.
Already responded to that – see the last part of #109. The very post we are responding to is an example, in my view.
No, you didn’t respond to it. You’ve never responded to it.
Oy veh.
In #118 you just repeat your earlier question which I think I’ve already responded to… We must be talking at cross purposes. It would help me to understand why it is, in yur view, “passive aggressive” to anonymize McGraw for the reasons I outline.
OB: Beth, they’re not the same kind of thing. There are multiple reasons. Surely you can figure them out for yourself. I don’t have time to spell them all out for you. (One is that asking people not to be personally physically intrusive and creepy is not the same kind of thing as whatever tf Phil Plait meant by DBAD.)
Okay, I’ll just have to disagree because I don’t see much difference between the gist of what Ms. Watson was saying and gist of what Mr. Plait was saying other than the groups (males/gnus) that were being exhorted to behave better. Yes, there were differences in the details such as the behaviors being criticized and the fact that Mr. Plait did not ‘name/names’, a behavior that Ms. Watson is now being criticized for doing. I see these as differences of culture and not of kind that impacts the gist of what they were saying – from your post #118: “It’s about telling others to be kind or respectful”
Personally, I prefer the specific example approach, but it’s obvious to me that there is a large group of people who object to people doing s. I also think there are legitimate objections to doing so. Such specifics, when invoked, tend to result in arguments going on now about whether Ms. McGraw was ‘attacked’ and whether Ms. Watson was correct/incorrect to do so. All in all, while I favor using specifics, I don’t see Mr. Plait’s failure to do so as a serious difference between gist of their two talks. I know from personal experience that naming names is seen as a serious breach of good manners in certain corporation cultures.
I completely understand about not having enough time to lay out the details to a relatively new reader. I wouldn’t be posting here in such length myself if it were not a holiday. Perhaps if someone else is kind enough to lay out their reasons for why they find the gist of those speeches different, you could chime in and let me know whether or not you agree with their explanation?
Argh – James – you never responded to this –
But this is just another example of exactly what I said – the label “passive-aggressive” (and tone troll) is used for people telling others to be nicer, not (as you said) for people just being nice.
Beth – well you’re right that the two have in common that they are about saying “do better.” But that’s not enough in common to be significant in the way you seem to be claiming.
I don’t think you understand me – the point is that people misread a genuine call for civility as an attempt to ignore the central issue when often it’s not. So they label it “passive-aggressive” and “tone trolling” when in fact it is a legitimate and principled call for a better mode of discourse. But I think this discussion seems to have run its course – I’m not sure what we’re even discussing, anymore!
But wasn’t that your main complaint about those you term “accomodationist”? That they are exhorting others to do better. If that is your main complaint, why isn’t it enough in common? If it isn’t your main complaint, what is your main complaint against the accomodationists arguments – i.e. Mr Plait’s DBAD talk?
No, of course not – it wasn’t a generic complaint that others were making a generic exhortation to do better. That’s ridiculous. I make exhortations to do better all the time – do better by not stoning women to death, do better by not torturing children for supposed “witchcraft,” do better by not telling women they are subordinate, etc etc etc.
If you want to know why I object to the DBAD talk you can search for it here or at Plait’s (where I left quite a few comments).
Well.
Even if Rebecca Watson’s experience wasn’t an example of inappropriate sharking by a bloke (which it pretty obviously was), and even if it wasn’t appropriate for Watson to point out that it was inappropriate sharking (and I think it was appropriate to point it out), the knuckle-dragging reaction from some quarters – male and female, apparently – has shown how right she was to think that there were attitudes that needed smoking out and confronting.
Dan
@Beth:
In that case I should protest more against Rebecca, as she was addressing guys (I’m a guy), while Phil was addressing dicks (I’m not a dick). And while I might be considered a “gnu”, Phil has denied he was addressing the gnus specifically (and if he was, he should have said so explicitly). Then again, since I already know men shouldn’t ask for alone time the first time you speak to a woman, maybe Rebecca wasn’t really addressing me either.
No, the complaint against accommodationists is that they demand civility, but only from atheists. They’re often happily joining all the Christians calling atheists “millitant”, for instance, even though in most other cases you need to use guns and bombs to deserve that label.
The other thing is that accommodationists are helping to preserve the status quo, in the form of the idea that certain beliefs, and in particular religious beliefs, are automatically deserving of respect. Showing disrespect can be a proper protest against this (and it works on some people too), but accommodationists want none of it.
Rebecca Watson, of course, is fighting the status quo, which is another reason why the two are not equivalent.
[…] Nominalism […]