Skepticism generally refers to:
…any questioning attitude of knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.
On one hand, I can see great value in people of a skeptical bent meeting, and exchanging ideas. I can see the benefit in skeptical people getting together to discuss ways in which they might get the wider public interested in applying skepticism in their daily lives. In a way, that’s kind of the reason Freethought Kampala came into existence in the first place. I am also interested in meeting and interacting with skeptics everywhere. There is a lot to learn about this world, and a lot of information to share. Meeting people with the same passion for knowledge is, without a doubt, a great thing.
But what happens when skepticism becomes more than a way of thinking, such as a movement in and of itself?
Movements are essentially political entities – and thus a skeptical "movement" is very much prone to abandoning the very skepticism it claims to uphold in favour of what, at the time, may seem politically expedient or politically correct.
Skepticism advocates an approach to thinking – not conclusions. On the other hand, political ideas advanced by movements are premised on what are already conclusions. That is why Elevatorgate, for example, is the scandal that it has become. It is, at its core, a purely ideological problem.
(To see and understand what exactly happened, see my previous post: Elevatorgate)
You would think that being skeptics, whatever disagreements arising from how the events surrounding and following from Elevatorgate were to be interpreted would be done calmly, rationally, and above all, skeptically.
But this is not what happened at all.
My concern is not so much about whether someone takes one view or another with regards to Elevatorgate. Indeed, even among the members of Freethought Kampala, there are different opinions on various aspects of the matter. My concern is about how the matter has been handled, the poor quality of arguments that have been advanced, the astounding amounts of hypocrisy on display, and above all the intolerant attitude towards viewpoints that don’t tow the radical gender feminist line – all this, among people that call themselves skeptics.
In this post I’d like to go into detail about some of the things that I found mind-boggling with regards to this fiasco – the ways in which I think skeptics decidedly jettisoned their skepticism, to embrace dogma instead.
THE BIRTH OF DOGMA
Arbitrary Rules
At the height of Elevatorgate, arbitrary prescriptions for behaviour were declared – with anyone questioning them being told they’re too privileged (or clueless) to know any better. Greg Laden, for example, declared that men must go to whatever lengths they humanly could to act in ways that did not cause a woman stress, under any and all conceivable circumstances:
Chances are that Elevator Guy was just a socially ignorant slightly drunk dweeb of no consequence.
Or not. And it is the "or not" part that a woman MUST pay attention to in order to live her life as long as she can before her first sexual assault, or to increase the amount of time spent between her last sexual assault and her next one, or to make the next sexual assault hopefully non-fatal or something that she can get out of quickly or minimize in some way. Because very few women get away without something happening in their lifetime.
[…] So I learned this trick. Cross the street about a block back and "pass" the lady that way. Same with a potential head-on encounter. If you see a woman walking towards you in the middle of the night on a lonely urban street, my practice in those days was to cross the street to not stress her out.
[…] All men. ALL men who have given sufficient consideration to women’s position in our society do this walking trick. If you are a man and you do not know about this trick then there is a problem with you.
So if I find this arbitrary rule to be faulty, which it most definitely is, the problem, apparently, is with me.
(The crucial flaw with declarations like Laden’s is discussed in my deconstruction of Schrodinger’s Rapist, further down this post: LOGICAL FALLACIES GALORE —> Special Pleading.)
Victim mentality also thrived, and the language police went on full alert.
On When To Proposition Women
Much was said about how men, blinded by male privilege, saw themselves as having the right to proposition women anytime they want. Below we have PZ Myers:
There is an odd attitude in our culture that it’s acceptable for men to proposition women in curious ways — Rebecca Watson recently experienced this in an elevator in Dublin, and I think this encounter Ophelia Benson had reflects the same attitude: women are lower status persons, and we men, as superior beings, get to ask things of them. Also as liberal, enlightened people, of course, we will graciously accede to their desires, and if they ask us to stop hassling them, we will back off, politely. Isn’t that nice of us?
It’s not enough. Maybe we should also recognize that applying unwanted pressure, no matter how politely phrased, is inappropriate behavior. 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.
Unwanted pressure? Unwanted?
Here is where the problem lies: a man generally cannot know until after attempting the proposition that it was unwanted. Not only that – it is, after all, also possible for a proposition to be unwanted at first but for the recipient of the proposition to change her mind after persuasion.
I can think of several occasions where I was invited out for a drink by a lady yet I did not seek this proposition, and I most definitely was not interested in being asked out initially. But after sufficient persuasion I relented and found myself later surprised to have actually had a good time. In the end, was I glad that I was propositioned even though at first I wasn’t interested and had said no? Indeed, yes. But then this is an ex-post-facto assessment of the proposition.
This basically means you can’t really tell if your advance is unwanted unless you actually make your move first, and even when the person seems initially reluctant, she can still be persuaded to take you up on it and can later find herself having fun. That said, there is an interesting debate to be had here about what degree of persuasion one might say is acceptable.
Human interaction is complicated thing. I would be curious to see how feminists would propose to delineate between scenarios like these, and those in which the offer was completely rejected despite attempts at persuasion – in such a way that the determination that the advances were completely unwanted can be made prior to actually making the advance. Can it be done? Is it possible to establish a meaningful and consistent default position on the matter? I highly doubt it – there is simply too much ambiguity.
The solution to such ambiguity is simple – as a way forward, women who attend atheist-skeptic conferences that are absolutely certain they don’t want to be hit on should wear a clearly visible “do not proposition me” sign on their backs. If not, maybe a colour-code can be designated for such women by the event organisers – let’s say, red – and then it could be announced that all women wearing red clothes should not be propositioned or approached by strangers. But will they do this? Most probably not. They will, in all likelihood, protest that it should not be incumbent upon them to make clear to others not to hit on them – yet at the same time they want to be in a public conference where human beings, the highly sexual creatures they are, are freely interacting.
I don’t think they can’t have it both ways. Feminists need to take responsibility for the things they are asking for. Either visibly label yourself as unapproachable, or expect that during the course of a conference a person who takes an interest in you might proposition you, as it is their right to do so. It is also your right to decline such an offer. If you have a problem with this, then just don’t attend these conferences. And its as simple as that.
Many feminists will probably point to this call for clarity and consistency and call it sexism. Well, if this is what counts as sexism in the atheist-skeptic movement these days, then I guess I’m a sexist. For goodness’ sake, if what they want is an end to unwanted propositions, are they envisaging a scenario where propositions will be made only when it is announced that it is permissible? What kind of a community is this then – where people want decrees issued about when and where you might and might not proposition a person?
Blind conformity to arbitrary cultural practices and social conventions is something you would think atheists had Ieft behind with religion. As long as one’s actions do not violate anyone’s fundamental human rights, and no laws are being broken, it’s difficult to see why a freethinker should be concerned with conforming to anybody’s ideas about conventions for social interaction. Of course, he can conform to them if he chooses to, but I don’t at all see how it can be argued that such conformity should be mandatory, let alone morally obligatory. And such rules, conventions, and prescriptions about behaviour are particularly funny coming from the atheist-skeptic community, for reasons I shall present in a moment.
With respect to propositioning women, should any feminist-atheist (male or female) insist that what they are simply asking for in this instance is for men to adhere to ‘basic’ rules of etiquette, then they have revealed themselves to be sexists. Why? Because rules of etiquette are premised on the notion of women as being the weaker sex – requiring men to do things like open doors, lift heavy things, or give up seats for them. Rules of etiquette, in essence, require men to give special, not equal, treatment to women. Yet feminists and their sympathizers issuing decrees about how and when men must proposition women claim that their aim is to promote equality.
That many skeptics do not see this contradiction, is something I find disturbing.
HYPOCRISY:
On Making People Uncomfortable
Atheists routinely mock and ridicule the deeply cherished beliefs of billions of people around the world. To the fervent believer, listening to an atheist questioning the existence of ‘God’ is deeply painful. They find it deeply offensive when we describe their deity as a petty and sociopathic murderer – or when we call their prophets pedophiles. They get upset when we call their holy books collections of fairy tales and myths invented by goat-herders. And now we’re even putting up atheist billboards to add insult to their injury. All of this is grates on the sensibilities of the faithful – and yet, we atheists do not waver in our criticisms of their beliefs.
We rightly point out to the offended that they don’t have the right not to be offended. We justify the things we say by exalting the value of free speech. We tell the religious that their blasphemy laws are barbaric and archaic – and tell hem to grow a thicker skin. And as we say this, we proceed to desecrate their consecration wafers, and draw cartoons of their prophet – to press upon them the point that being in free society means people have the right to freely express themselves, no matter who it offends.
All well and good.
But then in the NEXT BREATH, the people who are drawing cartoons (or promoting and encouraging those that are doing so) and desecrating wafers (and those who support them) are now insisting that its just plain wrong to do anything that makes ‘women’ feel uncomfortable (and they claim to speak for women in general).
Oddly, those who suggest that women who claim to be made uncomfortable should also grow a thicker skin (as the religious have often been told) are called sexists and misogynists. And most surprisingly, any woman who disagrees with their assessment of what qualifies as discomfort to a woman is derided as being blind to the plight of their fellow women, or get labelled a gender traitor.
Anecdotes Now Count As Solid Evidence
People who claim to have had out of body experiences report having seen things they could not have seen unless their souls were hovering above the room or out of it. We skeptics usually dismiss claims of Out of Body Experiences as not genuine. Well, we may grant that people might have had certain experiences of dissociation, but we tend not to accept that this is due to an immaterial soul or spirit leaving the body. We highly doubt that souls and spirits exist, and usually posit that such experiences can be induced by a variety of natural factors, such as consumption of hallucinogens or psychoactive substances, oxygen deprivation, or maybe even an over active imagination. New Agers will insist that these experiences are genuine – and skeptics will remind them, and rightly so, that anecdotes do not count as evidence.
The response of skeptics to defenders of acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, and reiki is usually the same. Volumes upon volumes of personal testimonies they present as evidence are dismissed as being anecdotal – and in all fairness, they usually are. Self reported accounts of improvement following alternative medical therapy are indeed difficult to quantify or verify, and so we usually demand that its practitioners apply rigorous controls in their studies that would rule out the placebo effect, among other factors.
So as applied to alternative medicine, miracle healing, and psychic reading, we do not give anecdotal evidence much weight. Our skeptical attitude towards hearsay is especially heightened in areas where we know that emotions and personal agendas play a big role in shaping one’s opinions and recollection of events, and rightly so.
The Wikipedia entry on anecdotal evidence expands on the issue further:
Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable. This phenomenon can also happen to large groups of people through subjective validation.
Isn’t it ironic then, that the SKEPTICAL COMMUNITY has exploded over what is essentially an anecdote from ONE individual?
In the above video is where Rebecca “Skepchick” Watson first talked about her experience in a hotel elevator in Dublin Ireland. Here is a transcript of the part where she specifically discusses her ordeal:
[…] The response at the conference itself was wonderful, um, there were a ton of great feminists there, male and female, and also just open-minded people who had maybe never considered the, um, the way that women are treated in this community, but were interested in learning more. So, thank you to everyone who was at that conference who, uh, engaged in those discussions outside of that panel, um, you were all fantastic; I loved talking to you guys—um, all of you except for the one man who didn’t really grasp, I think, what I was saying on the panel, because at the bar later that night, actually at four in the morning, we were at the hotel bar. Four a.m., I said I’d had enough, I was going to bed. So I walk to the elevator, and a man got on the elevator with me and said, ‘Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?’ Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don’t do that. You know, I don’t really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and – don’t invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.
Question 1: Did this ordeal actually take place?
Question 2: Did the events unfold as she described them?
Question 3: Was the man present in the conference in which she talked about how it creeps her out and makes her uncomfortable when men sexualize her?
Question 4: Was the man in the bar when she said she was tired and wanted to go to bed? And if so, was he within hearing range of her?
Question 5: She quoted the man as having said “I’d like to talk some more”. Doesn’t this suggest they had been engaged in prior conversation? Otherwise why would he say he wanted to talk more? Perhaps Watson is not telling us the whole story.
Question 6: Does what the man did constitute him ‘sexualising’ her?
Question 7: Does this man actually exist?
All these are basic questions, for which no verifiable evidence has been adduced, besides Rebecca Watson’s saying so. Anybody who calls himself or herself a skeptic should be interested in obtaining answers to these questions before forming an opinion on the matter. Should such evidence not be forth coming – he or she should suspend judgement. Indeed, skeptics have been known to respond this way when it comes to alternative medicine, claims of miracles, and psychic phenomena. That is what it means to be skeptical. However, when it came to evaluating the ordeal Rebecca Watson described, all that went out the window. Her anecdotal account of events was accepted as absolute infallible fact.
Responses to skeptical questions about Watson’s ordeal usually take the following form:
“Yeah… and all women who get raped are just making it up, right? Its because of people who think like you that rape victims don’t report the crime to police.”
How bizarre, for a skeptical attitude!
As unfortunate as it may be to some, where an accusation is made, the burden of proof lies with the accuser – at least that’s the way it is in most legal systems. If I have been defrauded it is my (and my lawyer’s) burden to demonstrate that someone defrauded me. If I have been assaulted it is my (and my lawyer’s) burden to demonstrate that I was assaulted, and assaulted by the person I am accusing of having done so. The guilt of the accused cannot be presumed from the start. This is important to note because there is precedent for rape allegations being fabricated sometimes. People have also been charged falsely for crimes they did not commit and have have served time in prison for them – and in worst cases, some have even been executed.
There is simply too little evidence to go on, and yet this man in the elevator, whose existence has not even been conclusively established, has been crucified for the thought crime of sexualisation and objectification. Several have even argued that he was a potential rapist.
All these allegations – based on an anecdote.
But it does not end there. Its bad enough for someone to form a conclusion based on an anecdote – but its another thing for this same person to reject the anecdotes of others as evidence. If anecdotes are admissible as evidence, why not be consistent and grant the anecdotes of others – including, and especially, the anecdotes of those with whom you disagree?
This is partly the problem with the discussions of sexism in the atheist community. There is no data – only anecdotes. Feminists and their sympathizers are not interested in the anecdotes of others, but demand that we accept anecdotes supportive of their views as fact. Rebecca Watson and a number of other women may report some experiences they had that they describe as sexist – and use this to make a case for how there is rampant sexism in the atheist community in general. But as a co-host on Skeptics Guide to the Universe, I’m sure she’s heard of the famous Roger Brinner quote:
"The plural of anecdote is not data."
The Wikipedia entry on anecdotal evidence expands on this some more:
Anecdotal evidence is also frequently misinterpreted via the availability heuristic, which leads to an overestimation of prevalence. Where a cause can be easily linked to an effect, people overestimate the likelihood of the cause having that effect (availability). In particular, vivid, emotionally-charged anecdotes seem more plausible, and are given greater weight. A related issue is that it is usually impossible to assess for every piece of anecdotal evidence, the rate of people not reporting that anecdotal evidence in the population.
This point needs emphasis: “In particular, vivid, emotionally-charged anecdotes seem more plausible, and are given greater weight.” Indeed, because of our inherent tendency to be more sympathetic to women expressing feelings of distress, we are more susceptible to accepting their anecdotes as fact, over the anecdotes of women who may not have experienced similar distress – hence, bias.
So if Watson and other feminists want to make a successful case for how there is sexism in the atheist-skeptic community, they’re going to have to furnish us with data, not anecdotes.
For example, out of the entire volume of correspondence between skeptics, how much of it is clearly ‘sexist’? What percentage of all such correspondence would have to be sexist for us to be able to say there is a ‘problem’ of sexism in the atheist community? One percent? Five percent? Twenty percent? And just what constitutes sexism? Unwanted propositions? How so? We’ve already seen the ambiguities that come with that.
Let’s see some data – with clear definitions of what constitutes sexism, in a manner that is gender neutral. Like this one, from wikipedia:
Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is the application of the belief or attitude that there are characteristics implicit to one’s gender that indirectly affect one’s abilities in unrelated areas. It is a form of discrimination or devaluation based on a person’s sex, with such attitudes being based on beliefs in traditional stereotypes of gender roles.
If it is sexist to make an unwanted advances towards women, surely it must also be sexist for women to make unwanted requests for men to ‘act like gentlemen’. Being told to ‘act like a gentleman’, is, after all, an age-old social imposition intended to intimidate men into forgoing their own interests in the interest of women who are in need of their assistance (etiquette, if you will). It is very much an attitude based on traditional stereotypes about gender roles, and an artefact of female privilege in society (in that specific regard) – hence sexist. Indeed, throughout history thousands of men have lost their lives by ‘acting like gentlemen’ – such as those who willingly gave up their seats on life boats for women as the Titanic was sinking. Other examples:
-
being expected to offer his seat to a woman
-
being expected to open doors for women
-
being expected to adhere to the “ladies first” rule of etiquette
-
being expected to “take it like a man” when faced with certain annoyances, while being expected to stop at nothing to ensure the minimization/eradication of the same annoyances if they are experienced by women
Can it be argued that all these are not a forms of sexism against men, if sexism is defined as “a form of discrimination or devaluation based on a person’s sex, with such attitudes being based on beliefs in traditional stereotypes of gender roles”? It obviously can’t. By proposing a gender neutral definition, and collecting relevant data that captures the entire picture indiscriminately – feminists will have demonstrated themselves to be the true champions of equal rights. But no, to them its only sexism when women are victimised - and the anecdotes of the few women who received unwanted male attention and insults will be all that counts.
The rigour that would be required in quantifying the prevalence of sexism, as it applies to all genders, is simply astronomical. And because there is no hard data to base any assessment of the prevalence and nature of sexism on, all discussions about it will always be nothing more than a he-said, she-said, slugfest of conflicting anecdotes. As we’ve already seen, the plural of anecdote is not data – and as people who call themselves skeptics and critical thinkers, we must evaluate data, not anecdotes.
On ‘Sexualising’ Women
[Sexualise – defn: make sexual, endow with sex, attribute sex to.]
Feminists who tell us that it is wrong to sexualise women are sometimes never shy to sexualise themselves when it suits their purposes. The video below is a video advertisement for the 2007 Skepchick Calendar, uploaded by Rebecca “Skepchick” Watson – the woman at the very center of this Elevatorgate controversy.
Below is Rebecca Watson herself, who also appears in the nude calendar.
She published a blog post titled Looking for Nude Skeptics? in which she said:
Looking for nude skeptics? Of course you are. OF COURSE YOU ARE, pervert.We here at Skepchick haven’t been in the pin-up game for awhile now, but that doesn’t mean we don’t support those who are still snapping sexy pics of themselves for a good cause. To fund Skepticon, the annual free atheist-y conference in the heart of the Bible belt, the Missouri State students are selling both sexy lady and sexy dude calendars for $14.99 each or both for $27.98. And man, are they sexy.
So they are quite happy to sexualise themselves to raise money – which they know they couldn’t do unless there were people who they knew would be interested in sexually stimulating images (the ‘perverts’ she spoke of), and were willing to pay for them. Then Watson has the audacity to say:
…don’t invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.
So on one occasion she promotes and sells calendars in which her and others deliberately portray themselves as sexual eye-candy, targeting ‘perverts’, and on another goes on to give speeches about how she hates to be sexualised. Further, when some someone allegedly does take interest in her in a sexual way (which, even if we grant Watson her anecdote, cannot be established), she says it makes her uncomfortable to be sexualised.
The hypocrisy is simply mind-blowing.
‘Twatson’
Then I’ve seen the madness on the internet over some people calling Rebecca Watson a twat and the associated portmanteau, Twatson .
Twat is apparently slang for vagina.
I find it funny that atheists would be losing their heads over this. Muslims said that cartoons depicting their prophet were deeply offensive to them – but most atheists went ahead to show full support to the cartoonists, and some even held competitions for the best cartoons. Catholics found PZ Myers’ desecration of a wafer to be deeply offensive – but he went ahead with it anyway, bragged about it, and we in the atheist community cheered him on and had a good laugh over it.
Creationists and Republicans have been the target of some of the most abusive tirades in the atheist blogosphere. Most atheists have said nothing to discourage this. The few that have said something, meanwhile, have been telling the others within their ranks not be a “dick”. Dick is slang for penis, but can also be used to describe an obtuse person. The insult is born out of its double-meaning. A lot of people find the term ‘dick’ deeply offensive and sexist; others do not, and have made a habit out of calling people they disagree with “dicks”. Hardly anyone seems to be describing this calling people obscene names as a sign of a moral crisis in the atheist movement – when it is directed at men, and the religious in general. But apparently we’re being asked to believe that there now is a moral crisis in the atheist movement because a few atheists are calling females they disagree with “twats” and “bitches” – and that this shows there is rampant misogyny in the atheist movement. But then there is no misandry in calling men “dicks”? Some consistency is needed here.
Once again, if what feminists are calling for is equality for women – that is, if they want men to treat women in exactly the same way that men treat fellow men – well, they should know that men frequently insult each other with profane words when they disagree over issues. Sometimes those insults may refer to the person’s genitalia. If feminists are suggesting that women should be excluded from such insults – on account that it makes them feel bad, without asking for the same exclusion for men – then what they are in fact asking for is special treatment, not equal treatment. There is nothing wrong with asking for special treatment – but there’s everything wrong if it is feminists asking for it, while at the same time claiming to have equality as their goal. That is hypocrisy.
[Personally, I take the view that being offended by words says more about the offended person than it does the person saying the ‘offending’ words, so I don’t make a big deal out of them. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. But I digress.]
Many who have been critical of Rebecca Watson have had their arguments dismissed because on occasion they might have insulted her. One Watson sympathiser said:
Please people, address the arguments, weigh in on the issues, be passionate in defending your point of views. But if you give me “Twatson”, you show yourself to be a clueless sexist dimwit who doesn’t shy away from using sexist derogatory slurs to advance a point, and I do therefore see no reason not to dismiss your arguments out of hand, for being the blatant and ill-advised ad hominems that they are.
But this person clearly misunderstands what the ad hominem fallacy is, and has unwittingly committed one himself. The fallacy occurs when you use a personal attribute of a person to dismiss a person’s argument, rather than the content of his argument itself. One can insult a person yet still address their arguments by raising sound objections. So while calling Rebecca Watson a cunt, bitch, or twat may be unacceptable according to the moral standards of some, it does not render any argument/counter-argument made alongside it invalid.
To illustrate the point, let’s say an atheist on Youtube said in the comments section of a creationist video (in which the creationist claims that there is no genetic evidence for evolution):
Hey fuckwit, Evolution happened. Comparison of the genetic sequence of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration. Now go fuck yourself with your creationist bullshit and while you’re at it, shove the bible up your ass.
The creationist wouldn’t get to say (if I may take what the Watson apologist said and replace twatson and sexist with fuckwit and vulgar, respectively):
Please people, address the arguments, weigh in on the issues, be passionate in defending your point of views. But if you give me “fuckwit”, you show yourself to be a clueless vulgar dimwit who doesn’t shy away from using vulgar derogatory slurs to advance a point, and I do therefore see no reason not to dismiss your arguments out of hand, for being the blatant and ill-advised ad hominems that they are.
.. without being called out for committing the ad hominem fallacy himself. Indeed, the atheist has insulted him, yes – but he also presented a valid counter argument, which our creationist has decided he will dismiss out of hand because of the insult. The insult was not intended as the counter-argument. The insult was intended as an insult. What was intended as the counter-argument remains valid as a counter-argument, whether or not insults were included.
I have already stated my views on insults – and as an error theorist, I will leave any moral evaluation of the use of such language up to individuals who care to make such evaluations, based on their personal standards.
If according to feminists it is wrong to call a woman a twat because she finds it deeply offensive, then so be it. They’ll have a tough time convincing others that it should apply as a universal rule, however. Just wait till they are told that their cartoons of the Islamic prophet are deeply offensive, to see why. “Free expression” they will argue, in defense of their right to draw Mohammed, should anyone take offense. But if free speech or expression is a valid defense for causing offense to others in the case of drawing cartoons of prophets, or desecrating Catholic wafers, how is it not a valid defense for calling people bitch, cunt or twat even it happens to offend someone? I can’t see how it is not.
It Only Matters When Women Are Victims
Anyone who’s listened to Watson’s various public talks knows that as an outspoken feminist activist, she does discuss sexism a lot in different public fora. In fact, prior to Dawkins’ comments on the Pharyngula, she had spoken about misogyny at 3 different events, including in Dublin, where she sat on the same panel with Dawkins to discuss “Communicating Atheism” (in the video below). Dawkins was therefore used to Rebecca Watson bringing up her personal anecdotes about sexism and misogyny on a regular basis. Here he is on a panel having to sit through yet another of her talks on misogyny – when she was in fact supposed to be discussing a different topic altogether.
Its interesting to observe that during her talk on the panel Rebecca Watson makes jokes about Richard Dawkins reading death threats that have been sent to him. She even says she uses his recorded reading of these death threats as her phone’s ring tone, and then laughs after attempting a mock imitation of Dawkins’ English accent. Then in the next breath she labours to press the point that people sending her rape and death threats should be a point of real concern. Watson alleges that such hateful emails supposedly prevent women like her from freely speaking out on atheism. But if that is the case then how come Dawkins doesn’t complain about the same? Where is the concern for Dawkins’ personal safety from Rebecca Watson? Or should we only be especially concerned if such e-mails are sent to a woman?
The threats, meanwhile, don’t seem to be discouraging Dawkins and most atheist men from speaking out – so in the interest of EQUALITY, shouldn’t we be asking atheist women to toughen up too? No? Double standards.
Further, in her talk why does she complain when her fans send her emails outlining their sexual fantasies about her yet she goes out of her way to depict herself in a sexually provocative manner to them?
Of course, two wrongs don’t make a right, and I suppose we can all agree that insults are not the best way to foster productive discourse. But it is frustrating to see that the voices screaming loudest about how we should not offend particular women with insults nor make them uncomfortable are themselves highly reputed for offending, insulting and making uncomfortable those whose beliefs they do not share. The ones making the most noise about how it is wrong to sexualise women are also the ones aggressively sexualising themselves on the internet. Those who object to calling women “twats” seem to have no problem when men are called “dicks”.
Hypocrisy makes it difficult for people to take you seriously, no matter how noble you feel your intentions are. More so if you’re engaging in a moral crusade in which you’re trying to intimidate people and bully them into accepting your rather arbitrary prescriptions for behaviour by using shaming language.
WITCH HUNTING:
Definition of Witch-hunt:
A rigorous campaign to round up or expose dissenters on the pretext of safeguarding the welfare of the public.
…as exemplified by this post on a blog called Furious Purpose, in an attempt to get blogger Abbie Smith (ERV) black-listed. He begins by listening the comments of ERV that he finds objectionable, and says:
Now, here is the opportunity for Jerry Coyne, Russell Blackford, Miranda C Hale and anyone else, to state loud and clear that they do not approve, or maybe in fact disagree with Abbie’s comments that I have just listed here. Could it be any more simple ? I’m waiting. And if I don’t hear from any of these people, that message will be just as loud and clear, in that they do in fact approve of Abbie’s hate trip against Rebecca Watson, the one she authorised to be conducted on her blog for the last month. One that has done far more damage to the atheist or skeptic movement than any timid appeals by Watson for “Guys, don’t do that”.
To begin with, most of the the criticism that Watson has received has more to do with her actions after the posting the initial video, especially her attitude towards dissenting views. And in the case of ERV and her commenters, this is specifically the case. I contend that many of their criticisms are both legitimate and justified, given the hypocrisy on the part of Watson and her defenders, examples of which have already been elaborated upon on this post. The fact that insults have accompanied the criticisms does not negate or invalidate the criticisms contained therein. Indeed, atheists are experts at insulting people who do not share their beliefs, as any cursory perusal through the blogosphere will show. Does this invalidate their arguments? Does ‘God’ therefore exist?
Of course not.
What is doing damage to the skeptic community is not ERV’s blog, but the fact that many of the prominent bloggers and ‘opinion leaders’ in the movement have decided to deliberately eschew their skepticism on this matter, promote a culture of witch-hunting, and rely on logical fallacies to defend the dogma that is radical gender feminism.
LOGICAL FALLACIES GALORE:
Guilt by association
People who disagree with Rebecca Watson’s interpretation of the incidence on the elevator have been labelled misogynists.
-
Misogynists disagree with Rebecca Watson, and have sent her atrocious emails containing threats of rape
-
You, too, disagree with Rebecca Watson
-
Therefore, you are a misogynist and a rapist-sympathizer
Hmmm…
The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.
Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).
More here.
Special Pleading
Following from Rebecca Watson’s encounter on a Dublin hotel elevator at 4am, there was heated discussion about why it is supposedly wrong for a man to proposition a woman who he’d never spoken to before. Especially in an elevator.
“Schrodinger’s Rapist” has been presented as the smack-down argument by those who take the view that men should not proposition women in elevators. The concept made its debut in an article called “Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced”, written by an author going by the pen-name of Phaedra Starling:
Now, you want to become acquainted with a woman you see in public. The first thing you need to understand is that women are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a man. To begin with, we would rather not be killed or otherwise violently assaulted.
“But wait! I don’t want that, either!”
Well, no. But do you think about it all the time? Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for women, it is. When I go on a date, I always leave the man’s full name and contact information written next to my computer monitor. This is so the cops can find my body if I go missing. My best friend will call or e-mail me the next morning, and I must answer that call or e-mail before noon-ish, or she begins to worry. If she doesn’t hear from me by three or so, she’ll call the police. My activities after dark are curtailed. Unless I am in a densely-occupied, well-lit space, I won’t go out alone. Even then, I prefer to have a friend or two, or my dogs, with me. Do you follow rules like these?
So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?
Do you think I’m overreacting? One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime.
[…] When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist. You may or may not be a man who would commit rape. I won’t know for sure unless you start sexually assaulting me. I can’t see inside your head, and I don’t know your intentions. If you expect me to trust you—to accept you at face value as a nice sort of guy—you are not only failing to respect my reasonable caution, you are being cavalier about my personal safety.
[…] To begin with, you must accept that I set my own risk tolerance. When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm. That possibility is never 0%.
As used by Watson’s defenders – women, we are told, have no way of knowing which man might rape her so she goes about her day assuming that every man she encounters is a potential rapist. If you proposition her in an elevator, it makes fearful for her personal safety – because she assumes you are a potential rapist. Putting women (or should it be ‘people’?) in the position fearing for their personal safety is absolutely wrong. Therefore propositioning a woman in an elevator is wrong – and should you disagree, you are a sexist-misogynist who is too blinded by privilege to “get it”.
Putting aside for a moment the fact that the overwhelming majority of rapes are in fact committed by people who are well known the victim, this argument fails the viability test as a credible moral prescription because, if the principle grounding all three premises were applied universally, it will lead to scenarios such as where black men are told not to talk to a white man in a confined area – because neither can the white man know which black man might assault/rob him, and making people fearful for their personal safety is supposedly wrong.
This counter-example is sometimes called “Schrodinger’s Black Assaulter/Mugger”. All attempts to challenge this counter example while maintaining the same principle for the potential-rape scenario, do, as far as I’ve seen, amount to special pleading. It is difficult to see how it could be argued that the fear of women being raped by strangers is intrinsically superior to the fear of a white man being assaulted by black men. Indeed this would be special pleading.
Should one try to counter “Schrodinger’s Black Assaulter/Mugger” by saying that it is a false comparison, or that rape stats outweigh assault stats, then all I have to do to refute this person is by quoting the author of the Schrödinger’s Rapist article herself, where she says:
To begin with, you must accept that I set my own risk tolerance. When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm. That possibility is never 0%.
In other words, based on the logic underlying Schrödinger’s Rapist, it is irrelevant whether or not it is a particular white man’s ignorant racist attitudes, or his familiarity (or lack thereof) with crime statistics that have made him fearful of being mugged by a black man. Black men must simply accept that a white man sets his own risk tolerance. To say this counter-example is inapplicable is to engage in special pleading of the highest calibre.
This counter-example successfully demonstrates the absurdity of proposing the Schrödinger’s Rapist argument as a basis for prescribing how men should behave around women. If the underlying principle were applied consistently and universally, you’d basically get segregation – and no one wants that (unless you’re a racist, of course). But if one insists that the moral principle underlying Schrödinger’s Rapist should be applied only to the threat of rape scenario and nothing else, then that moral principle is completely arbitrary – hence the fallacy of special pleading ensues when one tries to argue for its adoption.
Argumentum ad hominem
It is ironic indeed, that atheists, on one hand, like to laugh at Christians who say "you reject Jesus because you’ve hardened your heart" and yet there go the feminist-atheists, telling their detractors "you just don’t get it because of male privilege".
Let me grant, for the sake of argument that male privilege is a real thing. Even so, being privileged doesn’t necessarily make one’s argument invalid – in just the same way that being under-privileged, doesn’t necessarily make one’s argument valid. So Richard Dawkins, might be a rich, white, old, heterosexual male, but this in itself doesn’t render him unqualified to comment on issues pertaining to sexism or misogyny.
The notion of ‘male privilege’, as a sociological concept, is also a rather dubious, especially if it is applied in a linear fashion, which it most usually is when it comes to gender issues. The human experience is comprised of a vast web of inter-locking, counter balanced, privileges that cut across gender, class and race. Privilege is also context relative. For example:
-
In terms of quality of life – relative to a rich white woman, a poor African male peasant is underprivileged.
-
In terms of access to emotional support – relative to men, women are more privileged.
-
In terms of life expectancy – relative to men, women are more privileged.
-
etc
So pointing to ‘white male privilege’ as some sort of over-arching evil force that is being used to oppress everyone else is narrow-minded at best, and disingenuous at worst. It also smacks of political ideology.
We are all privileged – one way or another – and Rebecca Watson is also highly privileged to live in a society where on the basis of her uncorroborated personal testimony have legions of men, who will gladly overlook her several acts of hypocrisy, jumping to her defense and calling her detractors misogynist rapist sympathisers. Not many men could get away with pulling off something like that, but she can. Now that’s privilege.
But I will not let her being a privileged white female distract me from engaging her arguments, if they are there. In any case my problem isn’t really with her – it is with her defenders and enablers who have, on this occasion, decided to eschew freethought and skepticism for the political ideology of radical gender feminism that primarily sees women as helpless victims. This in itself, is sexism, whether feminists realise it or not.
As we’ve so far seen, the Male Privilege argument is bunk. The Schrödinger’s Rapist argument is bunk. They are bunk because their defences rest on logical fallacies.
RICHARD DAWKINS:
Richard Dawkins has taken a lot of heat for the comments he left on Pharyngula, after this fiasco had already gained full steam. From Salon:
She didn’t call for the man to be castrated or claim to be a victim of great injustice; all she expressed was that his overture made her feel "incredibly uncomfortable," and that guys should generally avoid doing that. "That" being 1) hitting on a woman after she has gone to great lengths to explain why she doesn’t want to be sexualized within the atheist community, and 2) ignoring her remark that she is tired and just wants to go to bed. PZ Myers, a biologist who pens the bookmark-worthy skeptics blog Pharyngula, wrote a post about it and then Dawkins himself — the rock star of atheism — waded into the comments thread with a satirical letter addressed to a Muslim woman…
“Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and … yawn … don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so…”
Who knew Dawkins had such flair for creative writing – and for being a dick?
Quick responses to the 2 points raised:
1) There is absolutely NO corroborative evidence that the man in question was present in that specific conference where Watson discussed sexualisation.
2) There is absolutely NO corroborative evidence that the man in question heard Watson say she wanted to go to bed. And even so, since when did saying “I want to go to bed” equal “I want to have nothing to do with anyone so please don’t bother me”? (I have, on several occasions while with friends, announced that I was leaving them to go do something, only to have one of them walk up to me on my way out and suggest we go do something else together, with me obliging in the end. Such scenarios are hardly uncommon.)
I will also add that there is no evidence that the man in question even exists. All of this is based on the anecdote of a single person, for which there is no corroborative evidence. It therefore cannot be assumed that Watson’s account of events is factual.
That said, Dawkins’ initial Dear Muslima comment was not even directed at Watson. It was directed at those who he felt were blowing things out of proportion. He obviously was of the view that time could be better spent discussing what he considered to be actual cases of misogyny such as the plight of women in the Muslim world who are subjected to the horror of female genital mutilation. Comparatively, to him, Watson’s ordeal on the elevator was a non-issue.
I concur.
Of course there are those who, at this point, accused Dawkins of fallacious reasoning – that just because bigger problems exist, it does not mean that smaller problems should not be addressed. Indeed in the strictest sense, this is true. But then this unfairly frames Dawkins point in a way it was not intended. There is such a thing, after all, as dwelling on non-issues. Whether or not something is a non-issue is in the mind of the evaluator, but once someone makes that assessment, as subjective as it may be, he or she is justified in emphasising the triviality of one thing in comparison to another. A proper response to Dawkins, therefore, should have discussed why Watson’s specific ordeal (where misogyny, sexism or harassment did not occur) merits as much attention as the suffering of Muslim women through genital mutilation. Unfortunately, most saw Dawkins’ comment as him telling Watson to shut up. But that was not the case at all. He was simply telling the people who were blowing things way out of proportion on her behalf to put things into perspective. And he made this clear in the response that followed his initial comment:
“Did you just make the argument that, since worse things are happening somewhere else, we have no right to try to fix things closer to home?”
No I wasn’t making that argument. Here’s the argument I was making. The man in the elevator didn’t physically touch her, didn’t attempt to bar her way out of the elevator, didn’t even use foul language at her. He spoke some words to her. Just words. She no doubt replied with words. That was that. Words. Only words, and apparently quite polite words at that.
If she felt his behaviour was creepy, that was her privilege, just as it was the Catholics’ privilege to feel offended and hurt when PZ nailed the cracker. PZ didn’t physically strike any Catholics. All he did was nail a wafer, and he was absolutely right to do so because the heightened value of the wafer was a fantasy in the minds of the offended Catholics. Similarly, Rebecca’s feeling that the man’s proposition was ‘creepy’ was her own interpretation of his behaviour, presumably not his. She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum. But he does me no physical damage and I simply grin and bear it until either I or he gets out of the elevator. It would be different if he physically attacked me.
Muslim women suffer physically from misogyny, their lives are substantially damaged by religiously inspired misogyny. Not just words, real deeds, painful, physical deeds, physical privations, legally sanctioned demeanings. The equivalent would be if PZ had nailed not a cracker but a Catholic. Then they’d have had good reason to complain.
Richard
People still didn’t understand his point. He tried again:
Many people seem to think it obvious that my post was wrong and I should apologise. Very few people have bothered to explain exactly why. The nearest approach I have heard goes something like this.
I sarcastically compared Rebecca’s plight with that of women in Muslim countries or families dominated by Muslim men. Somebody made the worthwhile point (reiterated here by PZ) that it is no defence of something slightly bad to point to something worse. We should fight all bad things, the slightly bad as well as the very bad. Fair enough. But my point is that the ‘slightly bad thing’ suffered by Rebecca was not even slightly bad, it was zero bad. A man asked her back to his room for coffee. She said no. End of story.
But not everybody sees it as end of story. OK, let’s ask why not? The main reason seems to be that an elevator is a confined space from which there is no escape. This point has been made again and again in this thread, and the other one.
No escape? I am now really puzzled. Here’s how you escape from an elevator. You press any one of the buttons conveniently provided. The elevator will obligingly stop at a floor, the door will open and you will no longer be in a confined space but in a well-lit corridor in a crowded hotel in the centre of Dublin.
No, I obviously don’t get it. I will gladly apologise if somebody will calmly and politely, without using the word fuck in every sentence, explain to me what it is that I am not getting.
Richard
Dawkins was probably unaware that an interesting bait and switch had already taken place. Rebecca’s initial complaint about discomfort about allegedly being sexualised was not the issue anymore. The issue was now about the possibility that she could have been raped. The man in the elevator was now no longer just a guy who made Rebecca Watson feel uncomfortable by making an awkward pass at her – he was now a potential rapist. So Dawkins’ dismissal of Watson’s experience as trivial was now taken as Dawkins’ dismissal of the plight of women who live in fear of rape, or of actual rape victims.
So to have my concerns – and more so the concerns of other women who have survived rape and sexual assault – dismissed thanks to a rich white man comparing them to the plight of women who are mutilated, is insulting to all of us.
Rebecca Watson, from her article: The Privilege Delusion
This, of course, was a terrible distortion of the intent of Dawkins’ comments – but that didn’t matter. Other feminist-atheist bloggers decided that Dawkins was going to be crucified for the sin of being dismissive of the ordeals of rape victims:
And so began the castigation of Richard Dawkins from all feminist quarters.
One interesting evaluation of Dawkins’ actions came from Jean Kazez, speaking at a recent meeting of the Fellowship of Freethought Dallas, below. She tried to put Dawkins’ comments in context of what had been going on in the weeks prior to them appearing on Pharyngula. Listening to her explanation, it is easy to see where Dawkins was coming from:
CONCLUSION:
Much as I’m annoyed by this all, I think we needed this debacle. This is a wake up call that I think all skeptics should reflect on. It raises many important questions.
For example, perhaps skepticism is not something that works well in a group setting, or as a movement. On the other hand, perhaps it is. Is radical gender feminism consistent with skepticism? Maybe it is. I’m inclined to think it is not. Is sexism the real reason women opt not to participate in atheist/skeptic conferences? Perhaps not – and I personally doubt it. The thing is, having the audacity to even ask these questions, is, for me, what skepticism is actually all about.
Any questioning attitude of knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere – is what skepticism is.
Let’s start acting like skeptics.
I certainly expect that not all will see things the way I have, and your comments are more than welcome.
Related posts:
81 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 15, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Greg Laden
That was not an arbitrary rule. It was an observation about how men in certain contexts who are cognizant of the situation women are in tend to act .
Your premise is good … that a “movement” and an approach to thinking tend to be at odds once the movement, well, moves to a certain point. What you seem to be missing in your own thinking is that you have made the argument that people who disagree with you must be thinking politically and are therefore wrong. You give a very significant clue when the very first thing you say about the issue itself (of elevator gate) is a reference to political correctness. You obviously have a bias against feminism and progressive thinking, and are hiding it behind a mask that pretends to be rational thought but isn’t.
Now, the normal response to what I just said is to accuse me of making an ad hominem argument. I’ll be here waiting for that …
Cheers,
Greg
September 16, 2011 at 5:11 am
BrokenDrum
I have also had difficulty with the suggestion that men should cross the street to avoid passing women – and have discussed it with several women. Their general reaction has been laughter – though a very serious hour-long discussion with my Wymyn’s-studying sister did come to the shared conclusion that men shouldn’t feel obliged to cross the street (and that black people should also not feel obliged to cross the street to avoid scaring white people, as the logical extension of Schrodinger’s Rapist would have them do) – but that it’d be rather nice if people smiled a disarming smile as they passed. She sent me a nice text the following day saying that she was making a point of smiling at people in the street.
My mother’s way of putting it – something on the lines of “For heaven’s sake, if your fear of being assaulted prevents you from sharing a footpath with people without having a heart-flutter, your fear has become the problem” – was somewhat more pithy.
October 25, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Tom West
I have also had difficulty with the suggestion that men should cross the street to avoid passing women
Given the reality of assaults and thus women’s fear of them, as a male, if a street is deserted and it’s late at night, I *will* cross the street to avoid passing a woman walking alone. It don’t think it’s morally mandatory, but I do think of it as simply being considerate – in the same fashion as giving up one’s seat for the elderly.
Many may not care, but I suspect that it allows a slightly less stressful walk home for some.
October 25, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Sandro
Tom, the issue isn’t whether crossing the street would be polite or considerate, it’s whether it should be considered mandatory, ie. it is ethically right and thus everyone should do it. Many of those embroiled in this debate actually believe this should be ethically mandated, but as James’ post quite clearly shows, these arguments are fallacious.
Any argument for this ethical rule would also require black people to cross the street when approaching white people. We clearly recognize the racism of this scenario, but because the power dynamic is reversed in the male/female scenario, we somehow don’t consider it sexist.
To make all else equal, consider whether it should be ethically mandated that a large black woman should cross the street when approaching a small white woman, because the white woman is scared she might get mugged. Trying to justify this is simply ridiculous. Correspondingly, the male/female scenario is similarly unjustifiable.
October 25, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Tom West
An interesting point, Sandro, but there’s one major difference between me crossing the street and expecting someone black to do so: power.
As a white male, I have the majority of power and privilege every hour of every day. A minor inconvenience to me to (possibly) put others at ease is not much to ask. However, to someone who has very little power or privilege, I would demand far less – after all, they’re already inconvenienced fairly thoroughly by life itself.
Similarly, I expect a young male in good health to give up their seat for the elderly on a crowded bus and look askance if they don’t. I don’t attach the same moral disapproval to an exhausted person staggering home from work who does doesn’t offer a senior his seat.
I’ll also say that “morally mandatory” is a pretty nebulous term. Is giving up your seat for the elderly morally mandatory? I can easily see a situation where two people both attach the same moral weight to an action and have one call it morally mandatory, and the other not.
I’d leave it as the nicely ambiguous guideline “decent people make a reasonable effort to assuage the discomfort of others, regardless of whether they feel that same discomfort themselves.”. What is reasonable to expect from the privileged and the unprivileged is vastly different.
Of course, one can always find corner cases where the guideline fails, but I think this conveys the basic moral underpinning.
October 25, 2012 at 10:43 pm
Sandro
Tom, I already addressed the power imbalance in my post. So I’ll ask flat out: should it be ethically mandated that a large black woman should cross the street when approaching a petite white woman on the street, because the white woman is scared she might get mugged? Or switch both genders to men if you’re going to quibble over the statistics, the argument is the same. Requiring this behaviour is racist, thus requiring men to cross the street is sexist.
Regarding your other scenarios, no, they aren’t ethical mandates, they are a matter of etiquette, which is exactly the conclusion drawn by James’ post about elevatorgate and men crossing the street for women.
October 26, 2012 at 7:48 am
Tom West
should it be ethically mandated that a large black woman should cross the street when approaching a petite white woman on the street, because the white woman is scared she might get mugged?
No. Neither is it, in my opinion, ethically mandated that a man cross the street to avoid a woman. But if you are a decent person, and it doesn’t inconvenience you overly much, then you will do so.
Regarding your other scenarios, no, they aren’t ethical mandates, they are a matter of etiquette, which is exactly the conclusion drawn by James’ post about elevatorgate and men crossing the street for women.
Indeed, they are probably etiquette. But quite frankly, much of human happiness relies on etiquette, and a failure to recognize its importance tends to make it pretty clear that a fair number of skeptics value their own self-regard over human welfare.
I have to say, James’ article really lit a light-bulb in that regard, bringing back unfortunate memories of the worst of my first year university solipsism but with an added dash of gleeful dismissal.
I mean, come on, what evidence does she have about being accosted in the elevator? That’s just pathetic (and creepy). Reposting slightly risque pictures? That’s repulsive. (Yes, she posted them publicly and has to live with what use repulsive people make of them – but that doesn’t make the action of reposting them less repulsive.)
And the bit about special pleading? Given the vast differences of experience between different races, genders and cultures, *of course* there’s no single set of rules that applies to everyone identically and can produce even a modicum of human happiness. But then again, who cares about actual real people when I can use “special pleading” and the whole list of logical fallacy terms to negate the actual experience of human beings.
The only claim he made I ended up agreeing with is that he essentially characterization the Skeptic movement are a bunch of self-absorbed self-aggrandizing jerks far more concerned about displaying their own cleverness than actually trying to spread rationality and increase human welfare. James pointed out that in such a community, you could not possibly expect your concerns and fears to be addressed with either compassion or care.
Although I don’t know whether James’ characterization of the community is a fair one, I suspect he’s right. Certainly based on a bunch of postings I’ve read in the Skeptics/Atheist movement, I’d advise my sons away from the Skeptic movement if they were inclined that way. It seems that it plays to the worst somewhat Aspergerian tendencies that many of us have, while suppressing the compassion and understanding for others unlike ourselves that most of us attempt to inculcate in our children.
Sorry for the length of this post. I’ve always assumed that rationality, compassion and humanitarianism would go hand-in-hand, and it’s quite a shock to find how wrong I was. (And again, my smallish sample size may be giving me an incorrect reading of the movement as a whole.)
Anyway, I’ll keep reading the thread and answer if questioned, but I won’t trouble the board further. Your Skeptics world is definitely not mine.
October 25, 2012 at 11:43 pm
An Ardent Skeptic
@Tom
You are talking about common courtesy for the feelings and needs of others. I fail to see how social status has anything to do with common courtesy. “Privileged” vs. “Underprivileged” should not change the demands of courtesy. If what is demanded does not apply equally to all than it is not etiquette that is at issue. Even a senior citizen should give up their seat on the bus to someone younger with a physical disability that makes it difficult to maintain balance standing on a moving vehicle.
As you described it, crossing the street does not apply equally, so I’m inclined to treat it as being neither a matter of courtesy, nor an ethical principle worth considering.
October 26, 2012 at 7:59 am
Tom West
“Privileged” vs. “Underprivileged” should not change the demands of courtesy.
On the contrary, I expect that those with extra resources courtesy of privilege to be more willing expend those resources for purposes of compassion or care, in the same manner as I expect those of us who are more economically fortunate to pay greater taxes to increase human financial welfare.
October 26, 2012 at 10:27 am
An Ardent Skeptic
@Tom
Again, I think you have given an example which still applies equally. People with more money are more capable of providing financial assistance for those in need, but everyone should be as you say, “willing” to assist those less fortunate than themselves. The degree of willingness should be the same. Financial resources are only the determining factor for the ability to act on that willingness.
As for your view of the skeptic and atheist communities as people with whom you would not wish to associate, I’m with you 100% on that score. Too many skeptics have forgotten that skepticism should be applied to our own thinking first and foremost. If it is, then introspection and humility should be the result. I haven’t been seeing a whole lot of skeptics exhibiting a whole lot of introspection and humility throughout this debate. Perhaps when we abandoned religion, we should not have abandoned the biblical advice of “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” There have been way too many verbal stonings going on, don’t you think? 😉
(BTW, I have no problem with people doing what they feel is right when trying to show courtesy to their fellow human beings. I just don’t think the concept of “cross the street” holds up to skeptical scrutiny as an ethical mandate. It probably isn’t a good idea to mandate behavior based on superficialities. That’s all gender and race really are at the ‘should cross the street’ level of interaction.
And, as an aside, I’m a woman and a nighttime person. I used to work a midnight to 8am schedule for years. I lived in a city and walked to work in good weather for the exercise. I preferred that people NOT cross the street when approaching me. That way I can get a good look and make eye contact. Crossing the street doesn’t prevent sneaking up on someone alone at night. In fact, crossing the street can be interpreted as an evasive action so that if they intend to do harm the victim would be less capable of filing an accurate police report and subsequently being able to identify their assailant.
Crossing the street is a matter of personal preference, IMO. Some people like it, some people don’t. I don’t, but I don’t think badly of people who do. I just don’t want personal preferences insisted upon as rules which should be obeyed. I don’t think that’s what you are doing, but others in the community have insisted that this street crossing dictate be followed without question. As skeptics we should be willing and able to discuss these ideas. Too bad we seem incapable of doing that discussing with courtesy.)
October 26, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Tom West
> The degree of willingness should be the same.
Agreed, but what we ask of people also depends on other circumstance. Obviously even someone who believes that it’s polite to cross the road should not expect anyone to feel obliged to ping-pong back and forth :-).
I suppose that if I think about it, I consider “thinking about other people’s needs and responding to them” to be a resource that also gets used up. People who are in less advantageous social positions to already spend much of their day, by necessity, having to assess and cater to other people’s needs over their own, so I don’t think less of them if they’re less willing to do so on their own time. They’ve already paid at the office.
> I’m with you 100% on that score.
Yes, but my blasting was inappropriate here. I apologized earlier.
> If it is, then introspection and humility should be the result.
Yes! Certainly that’s what I am happy to see growing in my son (well, at least the introspection – humility will come, I hope.)
Perhaps when we abandoned religion, we should not have abandoned the biblical advice of “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Now *that* attitude was what I expected to find in the Skeptics community! (And to be fair, probably does exist in the community – just not as a dominant force)
There have been way too many verbal stonings going on, don’t you think?
Yes – which is why my casting stones at the community was out of place. And to make it clear – my blast was not about James’ conclusion, which I disagree with, but I can see ethical people disagreeing with me all the time, but his method for reaching the conclusion.
I just don’t think the concept of “cross the street” holds up to skeptical scrutiny as an ethical mandate.
I have trouble with the term “ethical mandate”. I consider behaviour to be on an ethical continuum ranging from “never do” to “never do except in exceptional circumstance” to “really shouldn’t do” all the way to “always do”.
As well, the ethics of each act we judge is modified by individual circumstance. I find an ethical mandate is a post somewhere along the continuum that we erect that doesn’t take into account any particular circumstance and tends to over-inflate the ethical misdoing of those who step over the line and under-count the ethical misdoing of those who approach it and don’t step over. It just seems to prone to “gaming” and allows people to not examine the ethics of their own behavior as long as they adhere to ethical mandates.
(It’s why I abhor religious proscriptions, even if they might, in general, induce better behavior in their adherents.)
I preferred that people NOT cross the street when approaching me. That way I can get a good look and make eye contact.
There you go. A good reason why one size doesn’t fit all. I’ll admit that since I’m not very imposing, I don’t worry about crossing streets late at night if I’m approaching someone. However, I live in a pretty safe city, and I’m aware of the subtle “I don’t want to look behind to see what sort of person is coming up behind me as I should assume that we’re all civilized human beings, but I actually feel somewhat uncomfortable not knowing who’s approaching” type discomfort, so I’ll switch (if I’m not lost in my thoughts) if I’m coming up behind someone when we’re alone.
Crossing the street is a matter of personal preference, IMO. Some people like it, some people don’t. I don’t, but I don’t think badly of people who do. I just don’t want personal preferences insisted upon as rules which should be obeyed.
How… rational :-). Anyway, yes, I am in complete agreement.
I don’t think that’s what you are doing, but others in the community have insisted that this street crossing dictate be followed without question.
I find the extremes of almost any community useful for speaking what many others feel on a much weaker level. What is paralyzing fear for some (mandating an immediate change in behavior) is probably a discomfort and stress for others (which suggests changes in behavior). Thus. while I don’t think our behavior should be dictated by the edges of any community, I think they provide valuable data points. (Indeed, the same can be said of the Skeptics community as currently constituted!)
October 26, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Sandro
So would the black person be doing the decent thing in the same case? Come on, double standards and hypocrisy are simply unacceptable. We should not be encouraging behaviours that reinforce fear of our fellow humans.
What evidence is there that human happiness depends on etiquette? You can’t just make “facts” up to support your point.
Again, evidence? Simply recognizing that people were raised with different values does not imply that a single set of rules wouldn’t make them more happy than just sticking with what they were raised to believe. It further does not follow that such a set of rules somehow wouldn’t allow them to continue to pursue what they value, including irrational religious beliefs, so long as such beliefs do not adversely affect their civic duties to their fellow humans.
October 26, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Tom West
So would the black person be doing the decent thing in the same case?
If we define decency as maximizing human happiness, then the decent thing for me to do is split all my worldly assets between the poorest people. However, I don’t, nor is it, in the main, expected of me. Social and ethical judgement cannot realistically be made without consideration of the effect on the actor as well as the effect on those acted upon.
Thus, my ethical expectations depend a *great* deal upon the actor. Depending upon minority and socio-economic status, the effect upon the black person moving for a white person is going to be significantly different, especially given the harm done to blacks by being perceived as dangerous as opposed to the fairly minimal over-all harm done to men being considered dangerous to woman (and, please, please don’t try to compare these two levels of harm done…)
Come on, double standards and hypocrisy are simply unacceptable. We should not be encouraging behaviours that reinforce fear of our fellow humans.
(First, yay! I can spell behaviour correctly here.)
More seriously, I don’t just have double standards, I have a huge number of standards, While I may generalize, my ethical judgement of a situation uses general guidelines modified heavily by the context of both the acted and the acted upon.
What evidence is there that human happiness depends on etiquette? You can’t just make “facts” up to support your point.
Sorry, my fact is indeed simply 50 years of life experience. I use the term “etiquette” is generally short hand for consideration for others. I have found through observation that pretty much universally that those who don’t express consideration for all others are both personally unhappy and cause happiness among those around them. (Admittedly, I don’t know any sociopaths that might provide a counter-example.) No real surprise there. Among some, they valued “being right” over “being kind”. Mostly experience changed their outlook, for an unfortunate few, they are lonely and even worse, somewhat bitter.
Again, evidence? Simply recognizing that people were raised with different values does not imply that a single set of rules wouldn’t make them more happy than just sticking with what they were raised to believe.
A single set of rules that applies regardless of situation and circumstance is called religion, in my book. I consider many religious rules to be good guidelines to living a happier, more productive life. The danger occurs when they are universally applied without regard to context. The same thing applies with non-religious rules, and why I dislike the concept of “ethical mandate” (see my previous post).
Humans have recognized the need for context for almost forever – the court system has judges not just to apply the law, but to moderate it to take into account the context in which the actions occurred.
Now, I will grant that I am approaching this from a North American context. I have to grant that a context as different as that of Ugandan society may well have social needs/requirements that are just too different from my society for me to make meaningful suggestions or arguments.
October 26, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Tom West
I just want to apologize for my tirade of 7:48am. This is your community and I should have muted my reply. I am sure the Skepticism community provides sanctuary and friendship for many people.
What I should have said is this:
I have to note that James’ piece tackles the events and feminism in general as a set of logical argument that can be evaluated by counting your opponents fallacies.
Unfortunately, this is a pretty poor proxy for the human emotions, feelings and needs that must go into the evaluations of trade-offs involved in human interactions. (Which is why decent, ethical people can have diverging viewpoints. Such evaluations are, by human nature, going to differ between different people.)
Insisting on the point scoring mentality may provide the speaker with satisfaction for “winning the debate”, but rarely increases over-all human welfare.
November 2, 2012 at 7:47 am
Sandro
This is all standard ethics and I’m not sure why you think otherwise. However, applying rules inconsistently is unjust discrimination, period. That you can rationalize it to yourself doesn’t make it any less ethically abhorrent.
So should a black man cross the street when approaching a white woman? He’s black, so there was plenty of harm done to him, so he shouldn’t cross, but he’s a approaching a woman who is clearly deathly afraid for her life that a man is walking towards her at night.
Please quantify these effects in a rigourous manner so we can meaningfully discuss such “contextual reasoning”. Because if you can’t do that, then you’re not interested in justice, fairness and equality, you’re just rationalizing purely emotional judgments.
Hmm, so logic and science are religions. Interesting opinion.
Whatever rules work to yield happiness and productivity have some principles underlying them of which we are simply ignorant. We address our ignorance by applying the scientific method, ultimately distilling the principles, behaviours and social structures that actually make people happy.
Sorry, but not all of us are satisfied with anecdotes as sufficient evidence that something is a good or bad idea. You may find this disciplined approach to knowledge restrictive and emotionally unsatisfying, but chances are you wouldn’t have survived childhood if we weren’t using it properly.
June 13, 2015 at 12:12 am
Lodatz
“But if you are a decent person, and it doesn’t inconvenience you overly much, then you will do so.”
I’m intrigued by your moral reasoning, here.
Are you saying that doing something nice for someone else, that makes them feel better (be it: safer, more appreciated, etc) should be the objective for people to achieve during daily life?
If so, then I agree.
But then, I am compelled to make a comparison: why is it that we should lay this expectation upon the man in question, and not the woman? After all, if the woman is the one with the fears and prejudice towards men, why precisely is it a superior solution for the man to cross the street, when she could do so herself?
It would be easier, and more efficient, certainly. Moreover, why, in fact, should the woman simply not choose to make the MAN feel better by choosing to walk straight past him on the same side of the street, without making a deal about it?
After all: why should we not expect common courtesy to extend to women, and their own actions? What is the course of action with the least ethical deficit: a man going to physical, unnecessary lengths simply to make the woman feel better, or a woman merely continuing along the current course and not making the man feel responsible for her feelings?
Wouldn’t it be nicer to promote, in women, the idea that they are perfectly capable of encountering a man in the street without assuming or fearing that he is a monster that will do her harm? Wouldn’t it be nicer, and just the ‘decent thing to do’ to suggest that the woman in question actually get over her irrational fears and prejudices and not treat each man she comes across as some grave threat to her personal safety?
Why, precisely, is catering to, and fostering the prejudice at the root of this issue (demonstrated by men crossing the street) a more morally productive course of action than encouraging women to not look at men as something to be scared of?
Please explain.
June 13, 2015 at 2:49 am
Noor
Because these supposedly “progressive” folks want us to go back centuries to old-fashioned chivalry, “ladies first”, as well as putting all responsibility (and thus agency) in any situation onto the man, and expecting men, in true stoic gentleman style, to save women from any potential danger no matter that women are a minority of the victims of almost any crime.
September 16, 2011 at 4:29 pm
James Onen
Hi Greg,
When I said arbitrary I didn’t mean that you had no reasons for coming up with it. Of course you did. I was talking about the arbitrariness of the underlying principle, which is what we should always focus on in any discussion of ethics.
As I’ve shown, if the principle underlying the rule you’re prescribing were to be applied consistently, it would lead to class/race/gender segregation. Because those who advocate rules such as yours are reluctant to apply it to other situations, but want to apply it ONLY in the case of women with respect to their fear of assault, the rule ends up being arbitrary. Attempts to defend such a rule as applied to one situation, while insisting it does not apply to other situations will have you engaging in special pleading.
That is my point, and I’m interested to hear your response to it.
Not quite, Greg. I have gone to great lengths to demonstrate why they are wrong – by exposing the fallacies behind their arguments, as well as their hypocrisy. Why I think their reasoning is motivated by political ideology arises from the fact that I can’t think of any other reason why self professed skeptics would not see the flaws in their own reasoning. Of course, you would be justified in saying the same about me if you could show the inconsistencies in my reasoning. If you showed them to me, and I was still unwilling to concede the point, then indeed you could say I was blinded by ideology. Until then, I contend that my point still stands.
Indeed, and I stated as much in my preamble. I then proceeded to explain why this was the case.
I am against political correctness. I am a skeptic and a freethinker.
Political correctness is completely antithetical to skepticism, freethought, critical thinking, and philosophy. My opinions will be informed by reason and logic – and not on what might be politically or socially expedient views to hold. Indeed political correctness, nurtured by an ideology called gender feminism has been behind many of the arguments being advanced by Watson’s sympathizers. That ideology sees women primarily as victims – which is how we end up with thoughtful people like you telling men that we should cross the road to avoid an approaching woman so as to prevent her from having a heart attack on account of her fear of being assaulted. Like Broken Drum said, a lot of women who heard the rule just laughed when they heard it. It’s simply ludicrous, however well intended.
I am biased against bad reasoning. That the bad reasoning has come from people self identified as feminists does make me deeply skeptical of feminism, yes – if that is what you mean by bias. If you had only engaged my arguments, and my refutations of your arguments (and of those who share your views on this topic), I would be inclined to consider the possibility that maybe I was pretending to be rational. But since you have not addressed any of my arguments, or responded to my refutations of yours, I have to conclude that the one pretending to be rational here is you.
I think that’s what they call a guilty conscience, Greg 🙂
Indeed, you are making ad hominem arguments, as you have neither refuted, nor addressed my contentions directly. You obviously know that – which is why you said what you said, in anticipation of my response. I’m all for psychoanalysing people, but refute me while you’re at it.
I do read your blog and I think you’re a great writer. That we disagree on this matter does not make me respect or admire you any less.
October 14, 2011 at 10:48 pm
INTP
If there’s anything that will divide the sceptical community, it’s attitudes like this. It’s obvious that you’re trying to frame the debate as a battle between feminists and misogynists. It’s clear that the disagreements cut orthogonally across gender lines. I think the debate more accurately reflects a divide between liberal/equity feminists vs. radical/gender feminists.
What you’re trying to do is stifle dissent by smearing people who disagree with you (e.g. “there’s a problem with you” and “You obviously have a bias against feminism and progressive thinking”). When you do this, you come across as a dogmatic sanctimonious ideologue, not an objective freethinker or rational skeptic. Attitudes like this will create far more damage and divisiveness to the sceptical community than any perceptions of alleged sexism.
September 15, 2011 at 8:51 pm
@Dumnezero
I was initially shocked by lack of skepticism among the reactions. I actually wasted hours trying to point out errors and fallacies you mentioned here.
September 15, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Luna
@James
What an awful lot of verbiage you have just spent on missing. the. freaking. point. again.
Talk about logical fallacies and strawmen, you’ve got them. I’m not going to waste hours fisking them point by point, however — that has already been done a few hundred times by at least a few hundred people, and if you were able to misunderstand it so much already I doubt that one more repetition is going to do much good. It’s like arguing with a creationist, except more disheartening, since “fellow skeptics” are supposed to be better than that. And I’m tired of this stuff being dragged out of the grave yet again.
Why is the concept of “do not discount the concerns of the people who you want to associate with” such a hard one to grasp?
September 16, 2011 at 11:36 am
Associate
As “the skeptical community” we shouldn’t want to associate with people who are absolutely adverse to logic and actual critical thought, regardless of how those people want to label themselves, these people calling themselves skeptics is almost less accurate than one of those “all sex is rape” “scholars” being called a feminist.
September 16, 2011 at 4:52 pm
James Onen
Hello Luna,
Thanks for your comment.
…says a “skeptic”.
Hmmm, and what might skepticism be?
Skepticism is: “Any questioning attitude of knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.”
Of course you wont 🙂
Who says I was arguing against that? Can you show me where I might have alluded as much? I am simply asking for verifiable evidence, not anecdotes, to guide any discussion on alleged sexism and misogyny. I didn’t realize that this was too much to ask for, because I thought I was talking to “skeptics”.
And that said, why are you discounting the concerns of people who do not share your view, or feel that Elevatorgate is a bloated inconsequential mess? Your anecdotes count, but those of others don’t?
I think you can now see how one-sided this all is.
September 28, 2011 at 10:40 am
S.K.Graham
“Why is the concept of ‘do not discount the concerns of the people who you want to associate with’ such a hard one to grasp?”
Luna,
Why is it so difficult for you to grasp that this “controversy” has to do with something other than simply being considerate of other peoples feelings and concerns. Watson chose to make ElevatorGate an issue of sexism in the atheist community when she used the term “sexualized” in her original video blog. She and her supporters took this further in the follow-ups and comments, characterizing ElevatorGuy as a “potential rapist”, and so forth.
Depending on what ElevatorGuy knew and *understood* of Watson’s feelings, he is at worst guilty of being inconsiderate. His actions have nothing whatever to do with being “sexist” (so far as we have evidence). There is no evidence, at all, that he spoke to her as he did because he thought (even subconsciously) that as a male he was privileged to ignore her feelings or wishes. For all we know, he genuinely admired and agreed with all Watson’s publicly stated feminist opinions and perhaps was even infatuated with her (i.e. he may have thought of himself as “falling in love” with her, however foolishly); he may himself have been *terrified* to speak to her and extend his invitation (fear of rejection, of course) — hence waiting until that unfortunately awkward moment in the elevator; in his mind he may have known he was not a threat to her, and so, even though he had heard her speaking about the issue of being “hit on” at atheist conventions, he might not have realized that she was talking about guys just like him doing just what he was doing.
It is also possible that he was a total creep, with no consideration for her feelings, who “only wanted one thing” and given the opportunity would take what he wanted by force. Sure. It’s possible. But, given the available evidence, I’ll give anyone 100:1 odds that my version is much, much closer to the mark — assuming you can find a way to decide the bet fairly.
So while you are preaching about being considerate of people’s feelings, have you ever stopped to consider ElevatorGuy’s feelings?
We happen to have a next door neighbor who is a little odd. My teenage stepdaughter and her friends call him “creepy neighbor guy”. What he actually is, is a bit simpleminded and overly friendly old man (possibly mentally handicapped, but I can’t tell for sure — very “high functioning” if so — at any rate there is something oddly childish and innocent about his mode of conversation, if you actually let him talk to you), who tends to hang out in his front yard or walk around the neighborhood and strike up conversations with *anyone* who comes near. He obviously has no idea that he makes people uncomfortable. I’m sure it would hurt his feelings immensely if accidentally overheard someone talking about how “creepy” he is.
It is perfectly understandable if women, and especially teenage girls, feel a little threatened or “creeped out” by him. But his behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with sexism, male privilege, or sexual assault. He is almost certainly harmless. Do you supposed I should confront him and tell him that he is a creep and he better not ever say hello to my daughter when she checks the mail or walks across the street to her friend’s house?
If there was anything threatening about ElevatorGuy’s demeanor, don’t you think Watson would have elaborated on that? The fact that Watson may have “felt threatened” is not evidence the he “was threatening”. Those are two different things. The former is personal to Watson, while the latter can only be judged by a general consensus of reasonable observers — if Watson wants to condemn, even mildly, his behavior, then as the sole witness, she at least needs to make the case that something in his behavior would persuade other reasonable people to perceive him as “threatening” (for example, was he staring at her breasts? was he openly and unmistakably learing? did he stand too close to her? did he touch her?). Her bare bones description of the incident falls far short of this mark.
Given the available evidence, ElevatorGuy was almost certainly harmless and simply made a social mistake. Period. No sexism. No rape. No threat of rape. No harm done. Even if he has succeeded in remaining completely anonymous (has he?), he does not deserve the humiliation of even Watson’s original post, let alone the shit storm that has followed after. Do you think he does deserve it? If you answer “yes” to that, then all I can say is that you are guilty of being far more inconsiderate, *judgemental*, and, yes, *sexist*, than we have any evidence to believe about ElevatorGuy.
But. You. Probably. Just. Don’t. Get. It.
January 3, 2012 at 4:06 am
Sandro
I’m rather new to this whole controversy, and entirely surprised at the vitriol it’s generated. It’s still an interesting study on the makeup of the skeptical and atheist communities, and how ideology drives arguments in every human activity, even among “skeptics”.
I think you are exactly right that this is the core issue, and I agree that it’s a concern that should be addressed.
But we have to be more specific I think. The question is, is discounting the concerns of *a woman* you want to associate with, automatically sexist? I think we all can acknowledge that not all concerns that women have are sexist issues. For instance, mothers are often concerned about their kids’ grades, like any good parent would be.
So then, was the elevator proposition specifically sexist? This blog post has demonstrated quite clearly that if you replaced “men” with “visible minority”, the Schodinger argument supporting the alleged sexism, is racist. That means that the original Schrodinger argument is misandrist.
And it is, but we live in an imperfect world and women are right to want to protect themselves. They have legitimate concerns about sexual assault, and the discomfort many feel from being in an enclosed space with a strange man is real.
However, since the only valid argument to support the scenario’s alleged sexism is itself sexist, by reductio ad absurdum, we must conclude that the elevator proposition was not sexist.
However, being a real concern of many women, it is absolutely *impolite* to proposition women in elevators. I don’t think that conclusion is quite so controversial, and I think it’s good to bring this concern to people’s attention. Many of us wish to be polite and keep people at ease, but the way this issue was handled does not convey the proper emphasis at all.
Watson’s original off hand comment of “don’t do that” is exactly how far this should have gone. It’s only later that it ballooned into some bizarre sexist crusade, and that’s truly unfortunate.
July 1, 2012 at 4:05 am
MichaelWH
The irony! It burns! The goggles do nothing!
September 16, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Munkhaus
Nice article James. Predictable responses from Laden and Luna… no actual addressing of your points whatsoever, just a vague wave of the hands “you don´t get it”.
September 17, 2011 at 6:30 am
James Onen
Thanks Munkhaus!
I think the major problem with the “Skeptical Movement” today is that it has too many scientists and socio-political activists, but too few philosophers. Just ask Luke Muehlhauser – who had to learn this the hard way.
September 17, 2011 at 10:43 am
dumnezero
If there were more philosophers, it wouldn’t be a skeptical movement, but a skeptical “sitment” or “standment”.
September 17, 2011 at 10:53 am
James Onen
Hahahahahahaha….. nice one – but at least we’d have fewer logical fallacies going around than we have now 😉
September 19, 2011 at 2:43 am
notung
Yes, I agree – not enough Philosophy being done. The skeptical community seems to forgo the practice of Philosophy, while at the same time advancing an epistemological position which requires philosophical justification.
For your amusement, I discovered this on a blog:
“Skepticism is not some ideology where one cannot know anything. And before someone runs in screaming “No true Scottman!” [sic] – you could claim skepticism means you enjoy picking your nose while riding elephants, but that wouldn’t make it so. Skepticism is, at the very core, the application of the scientific method. To relabel it as some bizarro philosophy in where there is no such thing as knowledge is ridiculous.”
I think Philosophy gets a bad press from the skeptical community, and this is something we need to fix.
September 20, 2011 at 5:43 pm
James Onen
Oh dear, or dear…hahaha. Just read that Blag Hag article, Notung.
She seriously needs to brush up on her epistemology… yikes. Where are the philosphers? AC Grayling – where are you when the “Skeptical Movement” most needs you?
October 8, 2011 at 10:19 pm
The Armchair Skeptic
There was at least one philosopher, Paul Kurtz, who was a key player in the formation of the modern skeptical movement. But I always got the sense that he was more interested in the promotion of Secular Humanism than skepticism per se. In addition, I never found his writings on the subject particularly insightful or well thought out.
That might have contributed to the skepticism, among skeptics, about the value of philosophy. I agree with you, though, that we need some kind of philosophical underpinnings to help us identify what skepticism is supposed to be about.
September 17, 2011 at 9:45 am
Munkhaus
Also, it was disheartening for me to see Steve Novella, who I would have thought I could rely upon to point out logical fallacies and generally be a straight arrow, curl up and die on this whole business. He admitted to me in an email that he was biased on this topic… in which case, whats the effing point? If you can just sacrifice your principles because a colleague/friend is involved? Ah, what a shame.
September 17, 2011 at 11:21 am
James Onen
I think that, to his credit, Novella was simply being honest with you. Sounds to me like he’s being a good skeptic, given the circumstances – acknowledging his bias, and refraining from stating his position on the matter.
Do I wish he had bigger balls and called Watson out on her hypocrisy? Sure. But I’d rather he didn’t comment at all than say something that would make us doubt his intellectual integrity.
September 19, 2011 at 3:11 am
notung
Superb article James, interesting, insightful and comprehensive. You sum up my thoughts on the matter perfectly.
I think you’re the first person other than myself to actually treat the interested singular testimony at the centre of all of this with any of the doubt that a skeptic is supposed to apply. The way that About Mythbusters, Robot Eyes, Feminism, and Jokes is quoted, studied and interpreted as if it was holy scripture is staggering to say the least.
Things are going badly for a so-called ‘skeptical’ group when you just don’t get it passes for a counter-argument. Things are even worse when certain dogmas are established such that if they are called into question you are instantly labelled with an emotive and unfair name like “misogynist”, “MRA” or “sexist”.
I’m glad the issue is still being discussed. It highlights the hypocrisy in the movement, and will help us dispel our complacent and romantic view of the ‘skeptical community’.
September 20, 2011 at 8:15 pm
TheTrue Pooka
There is nothing rational about attraction or love. It is an entirely emotional response. Any people looking for skepticism in that area are fooling themselves.
That said;
Why is this still being discussed???
September 21, 2011 at 1:29 pm
James Onen
Hi The True Pooka,
Thanks for your comments.
You said:
The issue is not whether attraction is based on emotions, or not – it is how we should assess the consequences of the actions resulting from those emotions.
Many of our prejudices are informed by our emotions, but then, for rational people, these prejudices are amenable to change once pertinent information is brought to bear. This is why it makes sense to talk about ethics – even though our ‘moral instinct’ is largely a product of our emotions. It is the extent to which we can evaluate the consequences of our actions that differentiates us from other species of animals.
Using reason, we can assess the degree to which an action corresponds with society’s definition of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – but not only that, we can also discover which actions are more beneficial to human wellbeing than others. Sometimes society is wrong, and new evidence might get them to see things differently – as was the case with slavery. So don’t keep reason – and for that matter, skepticism – out of the equation, True Pooka 😉
It is still being discussed because Elevatorgate shed light on an important issue – that there are dogmas that the most high profile (or loudest) skeptics embrace. And as someone who understands skepticism to mean…
“Any questioning attitude of knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.”
… I feel that the issue needs to be brought up as many times as possible, and discussed. On this matter, several skeptics have decidedly eschewed their skepticism. This is definitely not a trivial problem that we should just sweep under the rug.
September 20, 2011 at 11:42 pm
Charles J Gervasi
I loved the detailed commentary. I completely agree that people in certain groups (men / people with dark skin) should not have to avoid being alone with members of other groups (women / light-skinned people).
I am pretty sure I have never scared a woman by asking her out, but I have light skin and stand 5’7″. Would it be worse if I were bigger and taller?
Not knowing any of the people involved, my wild guess is that the whole controversy started due to personal stresses and need for attention.
September 21, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Caroline
Very thought provoking. I used to think that people who argue that feminists are anti-male were deliberately focusing on one or two extremists, but I can see from this debacle that I was very wrong. I’m now wondering if I want to identify as a feminist any more – I think that forcing things on men is as bad as forcing them on women, and I don’t want to implicitly support people who think that one sex should have its hands tied and be told to shut up for the sake of another’s comfort.
Yes, rape is a problem. But the onus should be on people not to be rapists, not on all men ever to treat all women with kid gloves on the offchance that one of them might be afraid. I’m speaking as a woman who has been sexually assaulted a few years ago, and I would prefer not to be treated like delicate china – that’s not to claim wrongly that I recovered so every other victim should be fine as well; it’s to show that Watson’s world of constant worry and Schroedinger’s rapists is not as universal as she tries to make it seem.
There’s no way to read someone’s mind to know whether they want to be talked to or not. Asking someone out doesn’t make a man sexist or a potential rapist, just like saying no doesn’t make a woman frigid or a bitch. Sometimes, because of a bad experience or paranoia, a person will be unintentionally intimidated. Heck, I have been in the past. But it’s unreasonable to say that because of this, women should be considered terrified until proven otherwise.
September 28, 2011 at 11:05 am
S.K.Graham
Caroline, I think there are the proverbial “two kinds” of feminist. You happen to be the “right”* kind. 😉
(for any who want to flame me for this remark… it’s called *humor*… with both a grain of truth and a bit of self–effacing irony for those who can detect it… but if you must flame… )
* this does not in any way refer to the political “right”… though I am sure the “wrong” kind of feminist would like to think so.**
**(more humor, more grain of truth, deal with it)
September 21, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Charles J Gervasi
Yes. There’s a lot to body language too. If I ever get the sense someone might be uncomfortable, I lean away and say something like “good evening” in my natural geeky voice. It seems to let people know that the worst I might do is start talking about Star Trek. I might start out with “don’t take this the wrong way” or something to show I care how they receive my question. If I were the same person in a taller body with darker skin and a different accent maybe it would be different. It seems like all of this has more to do with it then whether you’re in an elevator. Wherever you are, if you’re alone with a stranger and border on invading their space, speak loudly, and so on, that is more likely to scare people. IMHO even if you do those things and scare someone, you haven’t done anything wrong unless you realized you were bothering someone and failed to back off. As soon as you see someone giving visual cues you’re bothering them, though, you really need to back off. Nothing like that happened in this case. It’s a tempest in a teapot.
September 23, 2011 at 11:34 pm
bluejohn
Thank you for your skepticism on this matter. You present solid arguments and show much restraint given the rampant hypocrisy in this situation. I hope that you explicate the last comment on gender feminism and skepticism being incompatable. That might be the crux of the issue. I grow weary of the ad hominem attacks (that even Laden knows he is doing) of you don’t get it. The vituperative sexist attacks of dweeb, basement dwellar, misogynist, nerd, MRA, little boy, etc. put forth by PZ and the like will be endess. Thank you for a reasoned summary.
September 25, 2011 at 9:23 pm
cosmic
Wrong Association – Culture vs Anecdote
Rebecca Watson Furore has the characteristics of a typical cult, It is not about the specifics of the elevator (anecdote). But about people’s personal struggles with feminism and attitude around it. Like a virus this almost meaningless encounter attaches itself to a host[feminism-skeptism] and struggles to multiply at the expense of its host. And like the Jesus of Nazereth story, that shifted from the Jew in Israel to people’s personal communion with God and how Jesus affects their daily life, this story has quickly turned from trivia to cult in no time at all.
An in accordance with the characteristics of a cult the original story has to be “bad” to perpetrate so fast and so powerfully. A bad story makes people irrational in its defense and makes them actively refuse to look at it critically. If they did the whole issue would not have arisen.
Looking at it from another angle, It believe it is important… like RD did to to triage the severity of this attack of feminism. It is life threatening or is it an annoyance. Do we stop looking at cases of rape, misogynist laws and instead feel our time and money debating about this issue. Rebecca Watson’s followers need to honestly take time to weigh their personal inconveniences against the bigger issue of feminism and its struggles
October 2, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Justicar
I’m the Justicar and I approve of this post. =^_^=
October 2, 2011 at 9:20 pm
DavidByron
Although I have been to a few atheist meetings I hadn’t been reading the skeptic blogs until this issue blew up (again and bigger than last time). I come from a point of view of criticising the sexism of feminism from a long time before that. So anyway – new to the skepticism blogs (although certainly not new to skepticism).
I have seen very little actual skepticism on this issue indeed. What I have seen is ideology with a deep emotional need. Obviously this is especially from the feminist side, but also often enough from the other side. Oddly enough in the places where they try to agree with *some* of feminism like a sort of defence mechanism as if to say “some of my best friends are feminists”. There’s a real fear of being labeled as anti-woman by the feminists and it is not limited to so-called “bad” feminists or “radical” feminists.
Specifically you see this in censorship. Most of these conversations take part shouting from one blog to another because it seems like people get banned for disagreement if they post off their own turf — and that is especially true for the feminists where their blog FAQs very often explicitly say that if you don’t agree with their view of feminism then you are not welcome to post.
At a bare minimum it seems that if you are a skeptic you should not eliminate opposing view points and yet that is very common on feminist boards. In fact I don’t currently know of any feminist board that does not do this.
If you are doing that then you are not a skeptic. You should not think you are part of a movement that promotes thinking and debate and reason when you explicitly eliminate it on your own boards.
Skepticism is easy when the topic is something you don’t care about or think is bunk. It’s easy to question and critique something you never had any part of to begin with. I admit it is therefore very easy for me to be skeptical about feminism, whereas for a feminist it would be hard. But I am not asking feminists to criticise their own movement or thoughts. I am simply asking them to allow such criticism from outsiders. Currently this does not happen.
That to me says that feminism has become an irrational dogma filled ideology, similar to religion itself in many respects.
October 2, 2011 at 10:11 pm
A man generally cannot know | Butterflies and Wheels
[…] was that, but I saw this morning that James had flagged up his recent FK post on the subject on Abbie Smith’s thread (the one full of “cunt” and “fucking bitch” […]
October 3, 2011 at 1:14 am
Greg Laden
The reason that the skeptical movement has exploded is much simpler than you suggest.
The movement was(is) filled with many individuals who used their skeptical position as a tool to maintain racism (as in the case of applied psychology to justify race-based hiring practices or policies that maintain poverty) or sexism (as required by numerous members of the community who have not matured past about 13 years old in developmental time).
Rebecca’s comments shook the latter group up and they responded in the only way they knew how: They pissed on the messenger.
October 3, 2011 at 2:36 am
James Onen
Hello again, Greg
Kindly define for me the term “sexism” as you understand it. I have a follow up question in mind.
Cheers.
October 3, 2011 at 4:24 am
notung
One reason for the explosion might be that the ‘skeptical community’ aren’t really used to disagreeing with each other, save for questions of strategy (e.g. is Dawkins too nasty about religion? etc.).
This is, as far as I’m aware, the first time that there has been an internal moral disagreement in the modern ‘skeptical community’.
What we should be learning from this is that the community is so far incapable of having a productive, rational discussion about an emotive issue. It needs to cease the name-calling and think about the arguments. If one is unwilling to have their convictions challenged then they’re no more ‘skeptical’ than the most fanatical religious believer.
Come, let us reason together. The response of the ‘skeptic’ is “Here’s why I disagree…”, rather than “I’m going to boycott your work, you MRA ****.”.
October 3, 2011 at 4:27 am
Justicar
Well, my “side” has left the door open to their side to talk. Their side insists that dissent must quashed.
October 3, 2011 at 1:16 am
Justicar
Remember, Laden is an anthropologist who studies neither culture, nor behavior nor societies.
And it shows.
But you should definitely listen to him. =^_^=
October 3, 2011 at 4:53 am
notung
I just read the B&W thread devoted to this article.
Firstly, your Facebook discussion was very good. I particularly liked the end – your homosexuality argument defeated OB’s argument that “most people dislike X, therefore X is immoral”.
However, the discussion on B&W has sent the level of discourse plummeting.
From the comments:
“James is another of those charming MRAs.”
“I’ve given up arguing with men like him. They’ll never be convinced that women are actual people.”
“I finished dinner right before reading this and I almost puked at how disgusting and awful James’ opinion is. Ick.”
—
Seriously, just what is the point of this ‘skeptical community’?
Anyway, it would be nice if some of the more rational ones there would comment here and we could get a civilised discussion going.
October 3, 2011 at 7:17 am
Ophelia Expects To Be Taken Seriously Too, Part 2 « grey lining
[…] the part of real interest is this – That was that, but I saw this morning that James had flagged up his recent FK post on the subject on Abbie Smith’s thread (the one full of “cunt” and “fucking bitch” and all the rest of […]
October 3, 2011 at 12:41 pm
An Ardent Skeptic
Thank you so much for this post. I am most especially pleased that you have stated why this is such an important discussion. Yes, we have to behave like skeptics and apply skepticism to our own thinking. This is essential if we wish to live up to the ideals we claim to advocate.
I have read some of the other posts you have written (I’m sorry I don’t live in the UK so I can attend one of your talks) and I am pleased to find someone in the skeptic and atheist communities who will give me great pleasure to read. I look forward to many hours of enlightenment reading all of your posts.
Over the last few months, I had become so disenchanted with the “skeptical movement” that, at the end of August, I deleted every bookmark for every major skeptic and/or atheist website I had been following. I had tried to make rational arguments for the need for evidence and reason in this discussion but I don’t have great writing skills so I was incapable of making this point as cogently and clearly as you have.
Thank you for your willingness to continue this vital discussion about what skepticism is and what that definition requires of us who call ourselves skeptics.
October 3, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Phil Giordana Fcd
Hi Ardent, nice to see you here!
I concure with your sentiments. I find James’ writings fascinating, to say the least. And about those deleted bookmarks, I did just the same, although they have now been replaced with way more valuable ones.
At least something good (for me) has come out of this mess… 🙂
October 4, 2011 at 12:39 am
0verlord
The same thing happened to me, and the only thing I regret is that it didn’t happen sooner. In fact, I consider myself disassociated from the “movement” entirely, even though my political opinions may overlap at times. A bonus to all of this, other than walking away with my dignity mostly intact, is finding consistently good reading material at sites such as this one, ERV’s, Barbara Drescher’s, and Franc Hoggle’s.
October 3, 2011 at 11:08 pm
0verlord
Hot damn! there was so much more to this than the very small selection to which I replied over at ERV (cf. 3094). Now I think I may have replied completely out of context, so I think it’s only fair that I read the full post and reply later. More soon maybe!
October 3, 2011 at 11:09 pm
0verlord
Also cf., 3067, 3084. My bad.
October 4, 2011 at 6:17 am
James Onen
Not your fault. Ophelia quote mined me.
October 4, 2011 at 12:48 am
Justicar
I take it all back. The public evidence available is immaterial. Apparently, Watson has claimed (never before EG one notes) to have a disease known as prosopagnosia. Don’t let the fact that she can recognize faces of other people from their pictures and vice versa stand in your way. This condition is tricky!
http://integralmath.blogspot.com/2011/10/almost-skeptical.html
October 4, 2011 at 6:24 am
The Problem with Privilege: (or: Evidential Skepticism) | Lousy Canuck
[…] even the existence of Elevator Guy is questioned. This last doesn’t have an adequate answer — it depends entirely on Rebecca Watson […]
October 4, 2011 at 7:02 pm
DavidByron
So…. basically none of the feminist are going to try and reply to this are they? You got two nibbles two weeks ago and that’s about it.
So…. I wonder if this inability to be able to talk about this issue is something unique about feminism, or would this happen with pretty much any issue where you had one side pretty emotional about their beliefs?
If it is any issue then absolutely this is a failure of skepticism I think. But if its the feminism which is the problem then we may be seeing that feminism itself acts like a religion.
October 6, 2011 at 3:42 pm
An Ardent Skeptic
I was hoping that we would be interested in discussing the overall implication of these events and the viability of the “skepticism movement”. (That’s how the conversation on this thread started but it seems to have fizzled out.)
I have been concerned for years about the calls for “activism” and the desire for a “movement” within the community. Do these group goals lead to group think and a lack of desire to question “leaders”? Is it possible to work towards goals as a group without compromising the underlying principles that skepticism requires? If, yes, how do we insure that we are upholding the ideals we claim to advocate both individually and as a group?
This incident has shown how pathetic we are at well-reasoned, evidence-based debate when an issue is emotionally charged. Has this issue become so emotionally charged because of a loyalty to people rather than evidence? Shouldn’t our loyalty be to the process of applying skepticism to all claims? Doesn’t that exclude any irrational, emotional debate which is supported by anecdotal evidence only? We dismiss the claims of purveyors of pseudoscience based solely on anecdotal evidence, while still maintaining an open-mind should more conclusive evidence be discovered. Why haven’t we done the same about the claims being made about the problem of sexism resulting in fewer women participating in the skeptic community? Why haven’t we said, “Please provide evidence for this claim. Until you provide evidence that meets the standards we require as skeptics, we will not accept your claim.”? End of discussion.
I think it’s odd that we are calling for activism and movements when we are still debating the “scope” of skepticism. Some think atheism is a subset of skepticism and we need to promote atheism as skeptics. Some think that skepticism is only useful in answering claims which we can test scientifically. Some think that skepticism can be applied to all claims as long as we understand the limits of our conclusions based on how vigorously and fully we can apply all the tools in the skeptic’s toolbox. Some of us seem to be completely confused about what skepticism actually is and think that “conclusions” are skepticism rather than the process we apply to reach those conclusions.
You have asked some great questions, James. Do you think anyone is interested in discussing them? I’m sure I don’t have the answers. I’m probably not even asking the right questions. But I would like to take a bigger picture view of these events and discuss why this has been an epic fail to engage with each other as we should be able to do as skeptics…calmly, with well-reasoned, evidence based arguments, not broad sweeping accusations about the evils of everyone on one side or the other. Can we discuss this without the “Get it” or “Don’t Get it” dismissiveness which shows a complete lack of nuanced thinking (and a lack of desire for applying skepticism to ourselves)? And, most importantly, can we discuss what we need to do as skeptics to prevent such failures in the future?
We’re really keen on setting down rules about social interactions between men and women. We’re not so keen on demanding that we all start behaving like skeptics — people who place critical thinking and reason, based on evidence, first and foremost.
(BTW, Justicar… Yes, everyone can discuss this on the thread at ERV but, this has become so heated, I think too many of us on both sides are too quick to pounce. We choose “brutally honest” rather than more diplomatic responses until we’re absolutely certain that the dissenter is unwilling to engage in rational, well-reasoned debate. Yes, it’s difficult to make the same point over and over again and we lose patience but, IMO, skepticism requires that cool-headed, diplomatic debate be our first line of defense when engaging woo with anyone new to the discussion. We have plenty of evidence that this is the best approach when trying to promote a particular point of view. This entire affair from both sides hasn’t been pretty to watch. IMO, it is a result of our skeptic “leaders” being unwilling to engage like skeptics should. We need to show them how it’s done, not use snark and vitriol as our first line of defense. We should be able to do better than this. Let’s talk about these larger issues and the failure of skeptics to apply skepticism to their own thinking.)
Well, “leaders”, are you going to show some true leadership on these issues?
October 7, 2011 at 10:05 pm
notung
Superb post, Ardent Skeptic.
I think the term “skepticism” is poorly defined. It should mean “doubt/question everything, leave no stone unturned”. This is the mantra of philosophers, so much so that for them, the term “skepticism” has another meaning – the claim that knowledge is impossible.
However, it is clear that the Socratic approach to discourse is not what unifies the “skeptical community”. We have seen this with the way that the comment threads have gone on the various blogs. Perhaps this is down to the nature of the internet, but nevertheless many well-known “skeptics” have been among the worst offenders.
So it looks very much like the acceptance of certain doctrines are necessary to be a part of the community. These doctrines may include scientism, metaphysical naturalism, atheism, and more recently feminism.
As an illustration, read this guest post on the Friendly Atheist by Jen McCreight. Especially this part:
(I feel bad picking on J McC twice in one thread. Apart from these monumental calamities there are only a couple more, and I think she’s generally pretty decent.)
So it seems that the conclusion is more important than the method by which you got there. This will lead to problems. Suppose I’m an atheist because of some emotional reason. Maybe I had a bad experience with religion as a child. This means that I may seek refuge with the skeptics without actually becoming a true skeptic.* (That is not to say there is not the desirable possibility of them learning how to reason and think critically. But for this, they need to be surrounded by those who already do it.) I can think of other examples where a non-skeptic joins the skeptical community.
The outcome of this is that the movement becomes saturated with non skeptics, and we have situations such as this:
A moral/emotional/political issue is brought up. Naturally, some people take the opposing side. The non-skeptics with more power/publicity attack those people (instead of reasoning and discussing), using emotionally-charged accusations like “ignorant of equality 101”, “parroting racist/fascist thought” etc. Those on the other side get rather riled at these tactics, and push the opposing position. They in turn are attacked. As publicity grows and the slagging gets increasingly heated, famous names drop in, to call for some perspective. They are attacked, boycotts are called, insulting letters are written. Many jump to the defence of their hero, the swearing gets worse, and the discussion is sidetracked with ridiculous diversions like “your insult was more offensive than mine”. At this point, many of the original opposition have stopped talking about it, realising that reasoning is just not a viable strategy. These people’s voices are quietened, and many of the loudest non-skeptics are given speaking roles by those who wish to curry favour with the powerful. In the end, unfair derogatory names are invented for those who take an opposing view, like “racist” or “WRA” (White Rights Activist) and we have our community schism, our “-gate”.
I believe the current “skeptical community” is a lost cause. A new movement needs to rise out of the ashes in which precedence is given to philosophical and true-skeptical thought.
This all feels very Hegelian.
—
* This is not a No True Scotsman fallacy.
October 8, 2011 at 11:46 pm
DavidByron
This is not a 50-50 thing. The failure is almost completely on the feminist side. If you are a feminist it is an emotional / ideological thing and if you are not then it is just not a big deal. Now as I see it two things are possible. Either skepticism is just about impossible if you are emotionally identified with an ideology, or feminism is an especially bad ideology and others might not be so difficult to discuss.
If it is the former then you’ve said a lot about skeptics vs eg religionists. Instead of saying well that lot of religious people just aren’t skeptical you’d have to conclude they could be every bit as skeptical as anyone else but on their own ideology anyone’s brain goes limp. OTOH maybe feminism is especially mind bending.
October 8, 2011 at 8:25 pm
spectator
It is interesting how none of the instigators in this schism feel any regret at the division that has resulted. All this nastiness was justified originally for making the group a more welcoming place. But instead, an extremely hostile atmosphere is what was created.
Since the “skeptical movement” was co-opted by atheism, the door was left wide open to embrace a host of additional radical ideologies. People who expressed concern were quickly dismissed. Skepticism moved from the general to the specific. Instead of promoting the method of critical-thinking, the “movement” began to transition to promoting a conclusion. Next came far left politics. Remember just a few years ago, conservative skeptics were purged from the ranks. What happened when this issue was raised? “Good riddance!” ha ha ha
This is one more ideological purging of the “movement.”
How much more marginalized does this community want to become? Now, you’ve got it all! Atheism, radical left liberalism, and gender feminism are now synonymous with skepticism. Congratulations on achieving that diversity thing. The Tea Party at least has that going for them! How else would Herman Kane or Michelle Bachman receive their support?
I realize these are US political issues. However, the anti-Tea Party ideology is what the skeptical movement supports.
I also think that atheism, more than skepticism, attracts individuals that get an endorphin rush from pissing people off. Case in point: Rebecca Watson.
Her follow-up vlog to “don’t do that” is a prime example of how much and how many people can I possibly piss-off in one short video.
Offending Christians and Muslims got boring after a while. Look at how much and how long the key players got the attention they crave from this controversy! Apparently, Skeptchick has stirred the pot back up by publicizing how hated she has become. When you think about it, public hate generates far more attention that love. Some people become so loved that they naturally generate haters, like Justin Bieber. I seriously wonder if Rebecca isn’t just out to troll the world or at least social media. She cut her teeth on the JREF forums. I think she loves the fact that there are blogs dedicated to hating her, as much as the sycophants who subscribe to Skepchick.
Of course, I might be wrong. I’ll change my view if there is evidence that she has so other motivation. Whatever it is, it’s not making the community a more welcoming place.
October 8, 2011 at 11:52 pm
DavidByron
Yeah that seems different though. I can imagine (did not witness) a split over left/right politics. But at least those differences could be discussed rationally. I can’t imagine either side having zero to say about it (on the contrary). I can’t imagine one side banning the other and refusing debate.
October 8, 2011 at 10:11 pm
The Armchair Skeptic
Thanks, James, for the thorough recounting of this whole sorry affair. As the lesser half of the husband-and-wife Skeptic team, I can only echo what she says above. We’ve been around the ‘skeptical community’ for many years now, and harbored concerns about it over 10 years ago. But it’s only in the last four or five years, with the rapid growth in the number of people who identify as skeptics, coupled with a greater emphasis on ‘activisim’ and becoming a ‘movement,’ that we’ve really lost sight of what makes skepticism unique among the various rationalist/freethought/humanist causes. My blog post about it is at:
http://www.skepticismandethics.com/2011/08/skepticism-and-values.html
I don’t think the meta-issue is about the compatibility of skepticism and feminism (of whatever flavor) specifically. It’s about what skepticism is, and how we, as skeptics value the principles of skepticism relative to other principles or beliefs we have.
October 8, 2011 at 10:23 pm
The Armchair Skeptic
Oops… the ‘she’ I mentioned in my second sentence refers to Ardent Skeptic.
October 9, 2011 at 1:03 am
An Ardent Skeptic
I’m not sure how much of this debacle is because of people placing a particular “ideology” above skepticism or, rather, skeptic “celebrities” refusing to reevaluate their own thinking now that they have taken a public stand on one side or the other.
We may also have a problem with the “followers” treating their particular favorite “celebrity” like a god who can do no wrong. Therefore, my comment about a loyalty to people rather than evidence should have more fully read, a loyalty to people rather than the principles of critical thinking and reason, based on evidence.
I would recommend that we all read Carol Tavris’s and Ellliot Aronson’s, “Mistakes Were Made, but not by me”. It should be at the top of every skeptic’s reading list.
I’m sorry, Armchair Skeptic, but I shall have to disagree that you are the “lesser half”. 😉
April 28, 2012 at 1:22 am
Maethor
Hi James,
This is the first time I’ve read your work and I would like to say that I am impressed. I think you handle this issue with intellect, thoroughness, and decorum. I really appreciated the balanced summary and the subsequent argument shredding. Your time and effort on this is much appreciated.
October 26, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Tom West
While I obviously disagree strongly with the article above, I would like to add my thanks to James for providing what seemed to me at least a very balanced account of the entire controversy in part 1. It no doubt took a long time to produce, and his effort is much appreciated.
July 5, 2012 at 3:13 pm
Elevatorgate | Rational Ugandan
[…] Elevatorgate – Part 2 – The Failure of Skepticism This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. […]
July 5, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Elevatorgate – Part 2 – The Failure of Skepticism | rational ugandan
[…] [Originally published in Freethought Kampala] […]
July 19, 2012 at 11:35 am
Charles
Excellent post. Very temperate and well thought out. Having recently reviewed the evidence, I was going to write up an analysis of my own, but I found you made all my points and a few more. I have reservations about a few points, but mostly the weight you give certain evidence, not the conclusions you draw. Highest Regards!
July 24, 2012 at 10:20 pm
Elevatorgate – Part 2 – The Failure of Skepticism | Freethought Kampala « Kentekens's Blog
[…] https://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/elevatorgate-part-2-the-failure-of-skepticism/ Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. « LousyThinker – More Mind Numbing Stupidity From FreeThoughtBlogs | What I learn…and do Elevatorgate – Part 2 – The Failure of Skepticism | rational ugandan » […]
September 12, 2012 at 4:29 pm
jimboandbear (@JimboAndBear)
“Question 2: Did the events unfold as she described them?”
Well we know for certain that at least one part of her story did not occur the way she claims it did. It’s this part:
“um, all of you except for the one man who didn’t really grasp, I think, what I was saying on the panel”
and
“don’t invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner”
Nothing even remotely relating to pick-up etiquite, sexualisation or behaviour at conferences was in any way discussed in that panel discussion. The only kind of “misogyny” by atheists and skeptics that was discussed was about commentry from anonymous commenters and emailers.
I was at that panel discussion and the entire thing is available to watch on you tube:
September 18, 2012 at 1:56 am
Elevatorgate – Part 2 – The Failure of Skepticism | Freethought Kampala « Kentekens's Blog
[…] https://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/elevatorgate-part-2-the-failure-of-skepticism/ Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. « What is atheism plus? | Christopher’s Blog *sigh* again with the venn diagrammes | Christopher’s Blog » […]
August 8, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Lessons From a Twitter Avalanche | saralinwilde
[…] in organizations like JREF and CFI is being fractured by accusations of sexist behaviour from powerful, well-connected men treating atheist women with exactly the same kind of contempt and sense of entitlement I […]
August 22, 2014 at 2:26 pm
Noor
Thank you.
This is exactly what I have thought, and more.