It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too

[rug]

I spoke out about sexual harassment among atheists and scientists. Then came the rape threats.



Rebecca Watson. Photo by Larry Auerbach.

By Rebecca Watson|Posted Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2012, at 10:18 AM ET

I’m a skeptic. Not the kind that believes the 9/11 attacks were the product of a grand Jewish conspiracy—we hate those guys. “Stop stealing the word ‘skeptic,’ ” we tell them, but they don’t listen to us because they assume we’re just part of the grand Jewish conspiracy too.

No, I’m the kind of skeptic who enjoys exposés of psychics and homeopaths and other charlatans who fool the public either through self-delusion or for fun and profit. It’s not just me—I’m part of a growing community (some would even call it a movement) consisting of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide who value science and critical thinking. We’re represented by organizations such as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, which was established in 1976 and has included fellows like Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, and Bill Nye.

I learned about the skeptics back in college, when I worked in a magic store and performed gigs on the side. I was a huge fan of James “The Amazing” Randi, a magician who offers a million dollars to anyone who can prove they have paranormal abilities. (There’s a huge overlap between magicians and skeptics, both of whom are interested in the ways we fool ourselves.)

When I first started finding a large audience on my skepticism website, on my podcast, and on YouTube, I wasn’t terribly bothered by the occasional rape threat, sexist slur, or insult about my looks. There was something downright amusing about a creationist calling me a cunt while praying that I’d find the love of Jesus. The threats were coming from outside of my community. Outside of my safe space.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/10/sexism_in_the_skeptic_community_i_spoke_out_then_came_the_rape_threats.html

[cbayer]

1. Prepare for the onslaught of total denial from those with privilege.

Ignoring and denying this issue is becoming an increasingly serious problem.

[skepticscott]

8. Please cite for us

Some of your examples of "total denial" of this issue by people on this board.

And spare us your concern trolling, while you're at it..

[okasha]

87. This is becoming remarkably reminiscent of Tailhook.

First response: It didn't happen.

Second response: It happens all the time. Get over it.

Third response: Something like it may have happened, once, but the silly woman's exaggerating. There was no intent to offend her.

Fourth response: Uh, yes it does happen, but my friends and I don't do it. We're good to our women.

Fifth response: Oh, shit. We may have to give up some of our patriarchal privilege if we don't want the women to abandon us.

Sixth response: Oh, double shit. Where'd all the girls go?

[cbayer]

88. Agree, it's an often repeated pattern which I had hoped we had moved beyond.

[Goblinmonger]

2. Yes, there are atheists that are sexist pigs.

They exist. Their atheism does not make them sexist.

And the atheist community is working toward making gatherings more safe and accommodating to all that want to be there. Personally, I doubt that it will ever be solved since there will always be sexist pigs that are atheists. But I think things RIGHT NOW are better than the RCC and will continue to get better though never perfect.

[intaglio]

3. Having watched this and been supportive of Ms Watson

since this started ... she's right.

P Z Myers on Pharyngula has been pretty outspoken in her support, whereas I no longer subscribe to Thunderf00t's You Tube account precisely because of his attitude and actions.

[beam me up scottie]

4. I had no idea skeptics were so organized.

Do we have a union? Official id cards? Where's the instruction manual?

[rug]

5. Here you go.

We’re represented by organizations such as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, which was established in 1976 and has included fellows like Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, and Bill Nye.

http://www.csicop.org/

There are others you may prefer.

[beam me up scottie]

7. Actually I'm not represented by any group.

That's the beauty of being a free thinker.

It must suck to be a card carrying member of a religion that requires complete adherence.

[rug]

14. Frankly, being bound by stereotypical thinking is not actually free.

Quite the reverse in fact.

[beam me up scottie]

17. You mean like catholicism?

I am not represented by any organization and have no belief system.

Try again.

[rug]

19. No, I mean like this:

"It must suck to be a card carrying member of a religion that requires complete adherence."

You may have no belief syatem but you have some weird beliefs.

[beam me up scottie]

20. That's not a belief, it's an opinion.

One that's shared by lapsed catholics everywhere.

[rug]

21. Excuse me. You have some weird opinions.

[beam me up scottie]

22. That's your opinion.

Glad we cleared that up.

[rug]

23. No, it's an observation.

[beam me up scottie]

24. Make up your mind.

You just called it an opinion.

[rug]

25. Pay attention. You called my observation an opinion.

You called your own beliefs opinions.

[beam me up scottie]

26. Right, my bad. My opinions are observations too.

Take that !

[rug]

28. Yes, I can see how lucid and clear-eyed they are.

[beam me up scottie]

30. They're almost as impressive as your spelling skills.

You may have no belief syatem but you have some weird beliefs.

[rug]

32. They are far better than my typing skills.

Nevertheless, the point stands.

[beam me up scottie]

43. Okay, right. Your opinions are observations and mine are not.

Got it.

[rug]

46. I"d say that's essentially correct.

I find the data supporting your opinions to be highly unreliable.

[beam me up scottie]

49. Just can't bear to look in the mirror, eh?

My god the denial is staggering.

Many catholics leave the church because they just can't toe the line.

It's nothing to be ashamed of, I personally think it's admirable.

[rug]

52. Who's talking about Catholics.

I'm talking about the stunning ignorance of this statement:

It must suck to be a card carrying member of a religion that requires complete adherence.

Clearly your "opinions" have have gone through some weird filtering. I find it hard to believe a person who claims to think freely could have formed a opinion so skewed as to be a caricature.

[beam me up scottie]

60. I was.

You appear to be confused, perhaps a priest could clear it up for you.

Tell him that you're pro-marriage equality and want to change the dogma, I'm sure he'll be very understanding.

Hey, what can they do, burn you at the stake?

[rug]

62. Well, good for you. Now show me where in the article that's a topic.

And you're lapsing into ad hominems again. Please try some free thinking rather than personal attacks and tired stereotypes about priests. You may find it refreshing. Unless of, course, your intent is to disrupt a thread with a flamewar about an extraneous topic, complete with lame personal insults.

[beam me up scottie]

65. Blatant hypocrisy is a valid topic.

And it couldn't be more obvious.

How's that glass house holding up?

[rug]

72. That's why there's that little button up there, "Post a thread in this forum".

It's blue.

Now as to this topic, since you bring it up, this article dramatically shows the blatant hypocrisy of those who identify as skeptics, atheists, and, oh my, free thinkers, while simultaneously engaging in despicable behavior.

Shall we talk about that?

[beam me up scottie]

77. I prefer to talk about the hypocrisy of the moral majority.

Your church wrote the book on it.

Literally.

[rug]

79. I'm sure you do.

It is characteristic of hypocrites to discuss the fault of others rather than their own.

[beam me up scottie]

83. Sorry, you can't stereotype people whose only common trait is non-belief in superstition.

The catholic church, otoh, requires its followers to be stereotypical misogynists.

Like I said, they wrote the book on it.

[skepticscott]

29. Just be sure not to ask ruggie

to voice his unequivocal support for gay marriage...then you'll really see what being bound by stereotypical thinking and religious indoctrination looks like.

[beam me up scottie]

31. I did not know that.

Why am I not surprised...

[rug]

34. You still don't know that.

Keep blowing your dog whistle to your playground.

[beam me up scottie]

35. So tell me.

Do you support marriage equality or not?

[rug]

38. See below.

Now I'll ask you the same question I asked scottie, tell me - succinctly - what that has to do with this thread, other than stirring shit. Or are you simply continuing your play now that you have a playmate?

[beam me up scottie]

41. Your support of marriage equality (or lack of it) affects people I know and love.

It's a valid question.

[rug]

47. It is but it's entirely extraneous to this thread.

[beam me up scottie]

48. Disagree.

Your comments regarding belief systems and religious stereotypes make it impossible to ignore the big fat anti-gay rights religious elephant in the room.

[rug]

53. It's impossible if your goal is to change the topic from sexism among skeptics to stereotypes and

disruptive diversion. Reviewing this thread, you began that path with your very first post.

[beam me up scottie]

58. The phrase "sexism among skeptics" is an attempt to stereotype non-believers.

But you knew that when you started this thread.

[rug]

61. Lol, that's the subject of the article.

Complain to Rebecca.

[beam me up scottie]

66. And what a picture-perfect example of sowing discord in this forum it is.

Keep it up, I'm not going anywhere and you're not fooling anyone.

[rug]

68. Really? Posting an article from a woman atheist describing the sexism she encountered?

Do you prefer it be ignored?

Frankly, it made no difference to me when you were not here to when you are here. Although I haven't seen these tired old tactics of yours for awhile. Have a seat. We'll have a lovely time.

[beam me up scottie]

70. Perhaps you can find an article describing sexism among non-freckled people.

Those smug creamy complexioned bastards have it coming.

[rug]

74. Yes, non-freckled people are precisely analogous to skeptics and atheists.

No need to wonder why I consider your opinions . . . . questionable.

[beam me up scottie]

80. I resemble that remark.

We freckled people have been an institution since before the non-freckled horde landed on our shores.

Don't even get me started about people with outies.

[rug]

33. Are you reluctant to ask me directly?

[skepticscott]

36. You have been asked directly

but have never provided a direct answer.

But have at it: Do you think that gays and lesbians should be allowed to legally marry? Yes or no? And is the Catholic Church or any other group that opposes the legalization of gay marriage deeply wrong to do so? Yes or no?

My answers are Yes and Yes. Here's betting you won't answer as succinctly.

[rug]

37. Yes.

Yes., although your melodramatic "deeply wrong" verbiage is nonsense. If something is wrong, I don't take soundings.

Now that we've disposed of your goading insinuations, tell me - succinctly = what that has to do with this thread, other than stirring shit.

[skepticscott]

40. You brought up the subject

of being bound by stereotypical thinking, so you've answered your own question. But it's good to know you're in full opposition to immutable RCC teachings. Though pretty sad that you think that cutting in front of someone in line or cheating on a test is just as wrong as fighting tooth and nail to deprive millions of people of their fundamental rights, or covering up and abetting the rape of children, as the RCC has done. Sad, but not surprising.

[rug]

45. Well, unsurprisingly, that's bullshit.

You evasively brought up same sex marriage to another poster. Go on, scottie, admit it. It's not hard to do.

Now as to the rest of the bullshit, had you een paying attention insteand of whispering innuendo, you would know that it has been said many times that a religion, including the RCC, is incompetent to determine civil laws. That is outside its teching, immutable or mutable.

As for the rest of your rhetoric, it's bullshit. But I repeat myself. Just be careful you don't fall off that horse.

BTW, I am bemused that you find yourself attempting to discuss child rape in a thread about sexism among skeptics. Something must sting.

[skepticscott]

57. Again, you brought up the subject

and advocated the view that you never make judgements about degrees of wrongness. The example of child rape was just a particularly resonant way to point out how morally bankrupt that point of view is. And since you were mentioned right up front there was nothing evasive. Admit it. It's not hard to do.

And to say that the issue of gay marriage and homosexuality in general is outside the teaching of the Catholic Church will be news to Ratzi and his red-hatted minions, as well as to millions of loyal, devoted, indoctrinated, gay-hating Catholics the world over. They've been very well taught indeed.

Keep flailing, though...bmus hasn't seen just how low you can sink yet...though she may be the only one who hasn't.

[rug]

64. Again, bullshit.

You're repeating yourself. I don't.

[skepticscott]

76. Ah, so repeating the empty label of "bullshit"

wasn't repeating yourself. Got it. Of course, you've stopped backing up that little tirade with facts and logical arguments, as is typical when you've run out of them.

[rug]

82. I would provide you with facts and logic but I fear the effort would be wasted.

[skepticscott]

84. Since you're down to that dodge, yet again

I'll leave you to your delusion that the RCC has no teachings about gay marriage or homosexuality.

[beam me up scottie]

67. How much worse can it get?

I'm going caving in the morning, an unexplored cavern with an underground river running underneath, do I need to bring my gear here too?

[skepticscott]

71. No, but bring your waders

The more ruggie talks, the deeper it gets.

[beam me up scottie]

73. Done.

I packed a lunch too.

[skepticscott]

69. By the way

When the Vatican called legal recognition of same-sex marriages "gravely unjust" (as opposed to just normally unjust), was that also melodramatic nonsense?

[rug]

75. No. Pay attention. It was a statement by an entity incompetent to make it.

[skepticscott]

78. Funny, they seemed to do a very competent job

of making it. And despite your claim to the contrary, you seem afraid to call it melodramatic nonsense..why would that be?

[rug]

81. For clarity, it was your post I called melodramatic nonsense.

And regardless of how well someone appears to do something, if that person has no authority to do it, it is a nullity. That is the meaning of competence.

[skepticscott]

85. And the Vatican's statement

would also qualify, by your standards. And by your standards, the RCC has no authority or competence to say or teach anything. Making its doing so anyway just one more example of what an arrogant, corrupt and power-hungry organization it is.

[Laochtine]

6. It's disgusting that atheists

would treat women this way. They should be more enlightened than their religious peers just
on principal. Frig, this is the 21st century and grow up.

[skepticscott]

9. It's disgusting that anyone

Would treat women this way. Why do you single out atheists? What is there about non-belief in gods that especially "enlightens" anyone about how to treat others?

[Goblinmonger]

11. Jinx

You owe me a Coke. I'm partial to the one with Christian Baby flavoring.

[Laochtine]

13. I don't think I did

atheism has nothing to do with misogyny but, they don't have a book that specifically tells a man to treat women like chattel like the Bible . I would think once you are free of the strict nature of religious bs you could see women as equals. Call me a dreamer.

[Goblinmonger]

16. So you are willing to excuse the assholes in one group

because they have a "holy" book that tells them to be assholes, but you won't excuse the assholes in a different group. And then, on top of that, you go out of your way to speak about atheists as whole while not saying anything about the religions as a whole that do far worse. And the impact of what the religious do in regard to sexism is a WHOLE hell of a lot worse for women than what atheists do. Atheist sexists are not uniquely in the position of power to affect legislation like the religious sexists are.

[skepticscott]

27. Don't think you did...what?

Single out atheists? I'd agree with you, except for the part where you said "It's disgusting that atheists would treat women this way.

And yes, you are a dreamer. Since when have men needed a book to tell them to treat women like chattel? It's been popular for a very long time, irrespective of religion.

[Laochtine]

39. it's much more refined

if a book lets them go crazy, w/out the guilt. I will continue to dream of a world w/out religion

[skepticscott]

42. I'll take your lack of response

as an admission that you DID single out atheists.

[Laochtine]

50. Weak, but if you have to

I do think atheists should be be above reproach, I know that will not happen but I want it to.

[skepticscott]

54. No one is above reproach

Get over it. That has zero, zip, nada to do with the question of whether there are any gods, or any good reason to believe in them. The truth of a proposition is not made more or less likely by the attitude, demeanor or behavior of the person advancing it.

[Goblinmonger]

10. How about it is disgusting that men would treat women this way?

Now, if you want to compare the systemic treatment of women by atheists as compared to a religious organization like the RCC, then let's go.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Not just women, the RCC's treatment of little boys is even worse.

Must be a fire sale on glass houses today.

[Laochtine]

15. You're right

I left an incomplete thought out there. There is no comparison, but I want to do better.

[DonCoquixote]

44. skeptics are human

Indeed, they are the ones that realize how human they are, because they realize there is no halo.

However, there are some, like the Ayn Rand types, that USE athieism as an excuse to be jerks; though I suspect this group would gladly and willingly make short work of such types.

[Laochtine]

51. I'm quite human and I've read most of Rand

I pretty much don't agree, but I can be a jerk sometimes, lol

[onager]

55. And there's always another side...

Even though I know some people in here would love for this to be a cut-and-dried, black-and-white issue of "Evil Atheist/Skep Misogynists!1!," it just ain't so.

It's always good to hear all sides of an argument, right? Unless you're trying to frame a very specific, narrow and one-sided narrative. But no one in here would do that, of course...

**********************************************************************************************

From a woman posting at JREF: First, from my very feminist viewpoint, Watson's feminist view is the one that is harmful to women.

Second, she's distorted Dawkins' comments and essentially claimed victimhood that is made from straw.

Third, she seriously exaggerated her own victimization in order to rationalize her absurd response to people who did not fall all over themselves agreeing with her about the guy who made a pass in the elevator. This includes exaggerating the problems at TAM and other events, exaggerating the lack of administration response to her complaints, and exaggerating the proportion of women who had personal experiences that supported Watson's exaggerations.

In short, the vast majority of men at TAM and other atheist/skeptical function seem to be perfectly well behaved. Watson's belief she's a victim is exaggerated beyond absurdity. People post jerky things in response to blogs. Famous people have creepy fans. It's not some issue within the skeptic communities, it's an issue with any large collection of people.

JREF Forum, "Rebecca Watson's article in Slate:"

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=246423

**********************************************************************************************

Rational Skepticism thread, "Atheism+ Hits the MSM," comment #3217 starts discussion of latest Watson article:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nontheism/atheism-hits-the-msm-t33705-3200.html

***********************************************************************************************

And finally the continuation of Abbie Smith's old thread at ScienceBlogs:

The Slyme Pit - Periodic Table of Swearing (216 pages and still going strong):

http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=73&sid=9d981b6d2e50fed3ce406dcd772ae5fd

***********************************************************************************************

FREE BONUS: Rational Skepticism thread, "Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)," 355-page thread, no comments since 12 Sept 2012 but still open for replies:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nontheism/atheism-and-feminism-or-watson-v-dawkins-t23650.html

[beam me up scottie]

56. Have I told you lately how much I love you?

Nicely done.

[rug]

59. Sure, here's another side you may be happy to endorse.

October 24, 2012

Schrödinger’s Rapist

If you are a regular reader of the more feminist-oriented of the Freethought Blogs, Skepchick, or other feminist blogs, odds are good that you have heard of Schrödinger’s Rapist. Even if you actively avoid such blogs, you've likely encountered reactions to Schrödinger’s Rapist on other blogs. I have read the infamous Schrödinger’s Rapist post a few times, and I'd like to share my reactions. I suspect that they may be a bit different from what you've read elsewhere.

Background

To provide a bit of context for my comments, I want to point out that the Schrödinger’s Rapist post is highly derivative (i.e., unoriginal). I read a few very similar articles back in the 1990s when I was learning about feminist and multicultural theories in graduate school. Some dealt with women and rape in virtually the same way; others dealt with the subtle forms of racism experienced by members of many ethnic minority groups.

What these articles had in common was that they were tools designed to inform readers about privilege. When I note that Schrödinger’s Rapist is derivative, I do so not to criticize it but to place it in this broader context. Being derivative in this case is a good thing, as the post belongs to this tradition. This is why it sounded so familiar when I first read it.

The Value of Schrödinger’s Rapist

Articles like this are not designed to bash men or to assert that all men are rapists. Rather, they are intended to provoke thought and stimulate discussion of privilege. In the U.S., male privilege and White privilege are similar to Christian privilege in that those of us who belong to these categories (i.e., White men) do not naturally go around thinking of ourselves as privileged. Schrödinger’s Rapist is one of many pieces of writing aimed at raising awareness of privilege, much like many of us have attempted to do with Christian privilege.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2012/10/schrodingers-rapist.html

Don't forget to read the supporting comments about "feminazi writing".

[cbayer]

63. Nothing wrong with hearing both sides.

Clearly there is conflict and disagreement here.

All I can tell you is that I have been smack dab in the middle of similar controversies and there is a strong tendency to sweep it under the rug.

I support these organizations and would like to see the leadership directly address it sooner than later.

Why would that be a problem?

[tama]

86. Academic science and patriarchal hierarchy

There is lot of overlap between the current skeptic/atheist movements and scientism, belief systems derived from academic "hard" sciences. So it is not surprising to see feminist critique and controversies in that field of human behavior and social networks, as the skeptic/atheist movements are largely part of the patriarchal hierarchies of academic science that feminist critique targets. Quick google for that critique gave couple links:
http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/509-10/femini.html
http://www.thegreenfuse.org/ecofem.htm

[Odin2005]

89. Do you think the average skeptic is any more sexist...

...then the average Religionist? Rebecca was NOT saying that skeptics were more sexist than religious people. She was just saying that there are sexist assholes in our ranks and that they need to get a clue.

[cbayer]

90. No, I do not and have never said such a thing.

In fact, I think the average atheist may be less likely to be sexist.

But that's not the issue. The issue is that groups that are based on being affirming and promoting further acceptance of atheists are having some problems with it and that those that are complaining are meeting up with some outrageous hostility.

It's a problem that needs to be recognized, addressed and fixed in order for these organizations to reach some of their stated goals.

Same is true of almost all male dominated organizations, including religious ones.

[rug]

91. Not at all.

Nevertheless it remainds a problem that should be neither ignored nor mocked. Particularly when skepticism is often described as a coolly rational and enlightened stance, especially in contrast to the "superstitions", "delusions" and "weakness" of believers. While there is much in atheism that should tend toward progressive political and social positions, it is by no means inexorable and is as subject to criticism and accolades as any other ideology.