Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Mark Hamill · 24-09-2012 08:29PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think in order to be a legitimate complaint, there must be a formal complaint made to police - as I said earlier, that's a dodgy road to go down...that's not to say every case is legitimate but I don't think not making a police report has ever been grounds to dismiss a complaint out of hand so the expectation that's what should be done is a little odd and straw-grabby to say the least.

Straw-grabby? Really? Look, given the nature and the claimed volume of harassments, don't you think even just one woman from one conference would have made a formal complaint at some stage? I can understand a higher tolerance for online trolling, but supposedly the real life stuff was constant physical and mental sexual harassment at conferences. But not one woman made a formal complaint. And they all kept going back. Who is really grasping at straws here?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Good question - why when they are subjected to months of insults, snide jibes, juvenile comments about attractiveness and a concerted effort by the same tired few to try to discredit and blindly refuse to see there being any issue despite it being clear there are at least three camps for the heinous crime of suggesting "don't do that" would anyone not tackle this earlier and more vociferously...I can't imagine...

You missed the point of my question. You said that they needed to ring fence an area to change the status quo, to get away from the threatening behaviour and harassment that was common on the internet in the past. Is FTBlogs not already an area ring fenced to avoid that kind of behaviour? How exactly are they powerless to stop posters on their forums? Was there a schism between the bloggers and the mods (assuming they are different people) that meant the mods just allowed the abuse unchallenged?

Also, going by Zombrex's reported experiences of the FTB forums, the bloggers and supporting community are a large source of the insults, snide jibes, juvenile comments and the concerted effort to try to discredit and blindly refuse to see there being any issue themselves.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

While it's clear some think they are succeeding in discrediting A+, the constant stream of negativity/snideness/dismissal in response to A+ make many of their arguments for them

Such as?

strobe · 24-09-2012 09:41PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

When it's inferred that women are fair game at such an even - or should be expected to be fair game, even though they are already greatly outnumbered, it sounds like the worst advertisement in history to right an already gender-imbalanced community/event...and if the folks at TAM were happy just to host a sausage-fest then I suspect we wouldn't still be having this discussion...

Just out of curiosity Ickle. Were you the Chief TAM organiser person (I'm not sure such a person exists - but hypothetically) and the demand to ban people from hooking up, or attempting to, at the events were to have been passed across your desk for approval, would you have implemented it? If so, how would you have done so, what from would it take, how would it be enforced, etc?

If not, how would you have rejected it without it implying (or more accurately - other people inferring) that women are, or should expect to be, 'fair game'?

yawha · 24-09-2012 11:02PM

Pace2008 wrote: »

I think it's a rather flattering image is all. She looks like a bit of a fox on the t-shirt; the reality is a lot, eh, plainer.

Comments and attitudes like these are exactly the reason why there is a backlash against atheist spaces being unwelcoming to women.

Again, what on earth has her attractiveness got to do with anything?

yawha · 24-09-2012 11:29PM

strobe wrote: »

Just out of curiosity Ickle. Were you the Chief TAM organiser person (I'm not sure such a person exists - but hypothetically) and the demand to ban people from hooking up, or attempting to, at the events were to have been passed across your desk for approval, would you have implemented it? If so, how would you have done so, what from would it take, how would it be enforced, etc?

If not, how would you have rejected it without it implying (or more accurately - other people inferring) that women are, or should expect to be, 'fair game'?

Why when someone complains or comments negatively on something, do others take this to mean they want to ban it outright, in some kind of absolute, black and white fashion? This is about changing social attitudes, not policing people or enforcing any standards of conduct and moving towards some sort of Orwellian dystopia.

24-09-2012 11:45PM

yawha wrote: »

Why when someone complains or comments negatively on something, do others take this to mean they want to ban it outright, in some kind of absolute, black and white fashion? This is about changing social attitudes, not policing people or enforcing any standards of conduct and moving towards some sort of Orwellian dystopia.

So what should or can organisers of events do to help promote "safer" spaces for women?
More specifically what could they do to address this problem in particular?

Pace2008 · 24-09-2012 11:56PM

yawha wrote: »

Comments and attitudes like these are exactly the reason why there is a backlash against atheist spaces being unwelcoming to women.

Again, what on earth has her attractiveness got to do with anything?

It's not like I'm saying I don't value her opinion because I don't find her attractive, nor am I making disparaging comments on the appearance of some girl who's just trying to go about her daily business. She put her image on a t-shirt for crying out loud, or, rather, what appears to be Katie Perry's silhouette with a smug comment attributed to Skepchick beneath it.

If Dawkins were to put out a t-shirt with what was purported to be his visage, but which in reality looked more like a Johnny Depp stencil, I reckon my sentiments would be pretty much the same. We egalitarian now.

yawha · 24-09-2012 11:58PM

King Mob wrote: »

So what should or can organisers of events do to help promote "safer" spaces for women?
More specifically what could they do to address this problem in particular?

I am not a woman, and thus cannot speak for what they think would make an atheist space feel more welcoming to them.

decimatio · 25-09-2012 12:14AM

yawha wrote: »

Comments and attitudes like these are exactly the reason why there is a backlash against atheist spaces being unwelcoming to women.

Few things here;

1. If he (or a woman) had just commented on a man's appearance in such a fashion I doubt anyone would have batted an eyelid. Even if he commented in a crude way I doubt anyone would have cared. But because its a woman he commented on then its somehow afforded a special kind of protection. Doesnt anyone else see the sexism in this? Not against men but rather this old attitude that women need protection.

2. I don't think commenting on anyones appearance is productive in such an issue but to suggest he doesn't have the right to do so is ridiculous. The moment you start telling people what they can or can't say you are limiting peoples freedom of speech and that should be unacceptable to anyone.

And for the record anyone is welcome to say whatever they like about me or my appearance.

Again, what on earth has her attractiveness got to do with anything?

Well she seems to think it has quite a lot to do with her public profile from her self promotions. Are men and lesbians only allowed to make positive comments on her appearance?

robindch · 25-09-2012 12:25AM

Just noticed this on thejournal -- a UK soccer ref receives two fairly sick comments on twitter, so he passes details of both to the police for further action. I believe these are less offensive than the worst that the ftb'rs claim to have received. Will be interesting to see what happens:

http://thescore.thejournal.ie/mark-halsey-twitter-abuse-608773-Sep2012/

TheJournal wrote:

ENGLISH PREMIER LEAGUE referee Mark Halsey has informed Greater Manchester Police of two abusive tweets following his handling of Sunday’s match between Liverpool and Manchester United.

Halsey received the insulting messages, which made mention of his suffering from throat cancer, after overseeing United’s 2-1 win at Anfield where he sent off Liverpool’s Jonjo Shelvey.

Two tweets were sent out by unhappy Liverpool fans following the game, both of which were met with outrage from other Twitter users. One post, from an account named àjohnwareing1, read: “I hope Mark Halsey gets cancer again and dies” while another from àlfcjohn259 read: “Mark Halsey should’ve died of cancer.”

Halsey returned to refereeing in March 2010 and Professional Game Match Officials Limited said in a statement: “PGMO abhors any abuse of match officials whether that is in stadia or outside of it. Our main concern is towards Mark and his family, and as with all match officials, there is a backroom team who are there for them.”

yawha · 25-09-2012 12:40AM

decimatio wrote: »

Few things here;

1. If he (or a woman) had just commented on a man's appearance in such a fashion I doubt anyone would have batted an eyelid. Even if he commented in a crude way I doubt anyone would have cared. But because its a woman he commented on then its somehow afforded a special kind of protection. Doesnt anyone else see the sexism in this? Not against men but rather this old attitude that women need protection.

Um, context is important. Women are constantly subject to comments on their appearance, very often in contexts where it has no relevance whatsoever, and they are often judged and demeaned by it. This harks back to a time when women were viewed purely in terms of their physically attractive features. Comparing it with someone commenting on a man's attractiveness is a complete strawman, given the context.

decimatio wrote: »

2. I don't think commenting on anyones appearance is productive in such an issue but to suggest he doesn't have the right to do so is ridiculous. The moment you start telling people what they can or can't say you are limiting peoples freedom of speech and that should be unacceptable to anyone.

Wtf? Please point out where I suggested that he doesn't have the right to do so?

Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. If you are suggesting I shouldn't criticise, then it is you who wishes to limit my free speech.

decimatio wrote: »

Well she seems to think it has quite a lot to do with her public profile from her self promotions.

She does?

Ickle Magoo · 25-09-2012 01:15AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Straw-grabby? Really? Look, given the nature and the claimed volume of harassments, don't you think even just one woman from one conference would have made a formal complaint at some stage? I can understand a higher tolerance for online trolling, but supposedly the real life stuff was constant physical and mental sexual harassment at conferences. But not one woman made a formal complaint. And they all kept going back. Who is really grasping at straws here?

Yeah, straw-grabby...really. Do we know that the women at the event were all the same women returning year after year?

I wish I could magically give you my shoes to walk in for year because it would be the easiest way to show you where I'm coming from...
Repeated sexual harassment sounds like a fairly standard night out to me and I'm no cat-walk model. Given an event at which women are in the minority, throw in alcohol and certainly if some of the attitudes that have been displayed are in attendance, I don't consider it outlandish for women to have experienced that...nor find it unusual that they wouldn't report it...it becomes a rather depressing given.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You missed the point of my question. You said that they needed to ring fence an area to change the status quo, to get away from the threatening behaviour and harassment that was common on the internet in the past. Is FTBlogs not already an area ring fenced to avoid that kind of behaviour? How exactly are they powerless to stop posters on their forums? Was there a schism between the bloggers and the mods (assuming they are different people) that meant the mods just allowed the abuse unchallenged?

No idea. Perhaps they just want a general discussion forum where they can actually have a discussion from a particular perspective rather than blog and then field the slew of responses caused by the current demographics? Perhaps they were just the public voices to the many other atheistic/sceptic women who avoid the current discussion sites? I imagine it's much easier (or at least will become easier once all the fuss/trolling/pig-tail pulling has died down) to police discussion when posters have to sign up to the site which has developed a known specific remit than trying to have any kind of discussion via open day on a personal blog.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Also, going by Zombrex's reported experiences of the FTB forums, the bloggers and supporting community are a large source of the insults, snide jibes, juvenile comments and the concerted effort to try to discredit and blindly refuse to see there being any issue themselves.

While I think the forum would have to be better moderated and more civil for me to want to start posting there, I also think deliberately posting inflammatory material which ignores some of the forums basic premises is going to generate a fairly standard response, regardless of the discussion forum in question...it's a bit like poking the wasps nest to confirm to yourself how aggressive and nasty all those wasps are.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Such as?

Such as shouting down/trying to shut down anyone who doesn't automatically take their side against A+, such as the conveyor belt of reasons that have been trotted in order to dismiss concerns about how women are treated within the atheist/sceptic community, all the petty bitchy comments about another forum which only exists, only ever came about because of the reaction from certain quarters of the community to a woman daring to publicly comment on being propositioned.

Strobe wrote:

Just out of curiosity Ickle. Were you the Chief TAM organiser person (I'm not sure such a person exists - but hypothetically) and the demand to ban people from hooking up, or attempting to, at the events were to have been passed across your desk for approval, would you have implemented it? If so, how would you have done so, what from would it take, how would it be enforced, etc?

If not, how would you have rejected it without it implying (or more accurately - other people inferring) that women are, or should expect to be, 'fair game'?

I have to agree with yawha. It is much easier to suggest hypothetical and rather hyperbolic bans on hooking up than it is to admit that the general reaction to women attending an atheist/sceptic meet feeling harassed or scared or being put off getting involved should perhaps have been a modicum more empathetic than it was... How that is remedied at this stage? I have no idea.

decimatio · 25-09-2012 01:24AM

yawha wrote: »

Um, context is important. Women are constantly subject to comments on their appearance, very often in contexts where it has no relevance whatsoever, and they are often judged and demeaned by it. This harks back to a time when women were viewed purely in terms of their physically attractive features. Comparing it with someone commenting on a man's attractiveness is a complete strawman, given the context.

It wasn't my point to begin with and its still irrelevant but men are judged by their appearance nowadays almost as much as women are. Again, not my point.

My point which you missed was that you are implying women should have special protection in this regard which is itself sexism against women.

Wtf? Please point out where I suggested that he doesn't have the right to do so?

Your suggestion that his comments showed the need for the setting up of A+, an organisation who would indeed ban any such language.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. If you are suggesting I shouldn't criticise, then it is you who wishes to limit my free speech.

Absolutely freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

She does?

She uses her looks to sell her merchandise does she not?

yawha · 25-09-2012 02:28AM

decimatio wrote: »

It wasn't my point to begin with and its still irrelevant but men are judged by their appearance nowadays almost as much as women are. Again, not my point.

My point which you missed was that you are implying women should have special protection in this regard which is itself sexism against women.

Special protection? No.

People should know better than to randomly comment and on judge the physical attractiveness of people of either gender in inappropriate situations.

You say that men are judged by their appearance almost as much as women? I disagree. Especially in male dominated environments such as online forums, or atheist circles. My point is predicated on this fact. I'm not sure I have the energy to argue something which to me is so self evident though...

decimatio wrote: »

Your suggestion that his comments showed the need for the setting up of A+, an organisation who would indeed ban any such language.

A+ isn't a police state... It's simply a space facilitating the discussion of topics so that they don't degrade into introductory lessons to social justice concepts for dissenters.

Similarly, should a safe space for LGBT people have to constantly debate with anti-LGBT people about whether or not their sexual/gender orientations are wrong?

decimatio wrote: »

She uses her looks to sell her merchandise does she not?

Not as far as I'm aware.

Mark Hamill · 25-09-2012 02:47AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Yeah, straw-grabby...really. Do we know that the women at the event were all the same women returning year after year?

We know skepchick returned year after year, despite the constant harassment which she claimed she got and which she claimed permeated the conferences.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I wish I could magically give you my shoes to walk in for year because it would be the easiest way to show you where I'm coming from...
Repeated sexual harassment sounds like a fairly standard night out to me and I'm no cat-walk model. Given an event at which women are in the minority, throw in alcohol and certainly if some of the attitudes that have been displayed are in attendance, I don't consider it outlandish for women to have experienced that...nor find it unusual that they wouldn't report it...it becomes a rather depressing given.

I think I will keep my shoes thanks, keeps me in a more objective position. For one thing, I can objectively read the actual claim Watson made, because if you can read that and think "yeah, sounds like an average Saturday night", then I'd be terrified to put on your shoes.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No idea. Perhaps they just want a general discussion forum where they can actually have a discussion from a particular perspective rather than blog and then field the slew of responses caused by the current demographics? Perhaps they were just the public voices to the many other atheistic/sceptic women who avoid the current discussion sites? I imagine it's much easier (or at least will become easier once all the fuss/trolling/pig-tail pulling has died down) to police discussion when posters have to sign up to the site which has developed a known specific remit than trying to have any kind of discussion via open day on a personal blog.

That doesn't make any sense. Their own blogs don't have known specific remits, but another forum would? And how exactly will another forum avoid any of the issues the FTB forum has, given that a lot of the same people are involved? Its not like the same dissenters can sign up to both forums, Zombrex did, so what exactly does it avoid?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

While I think the forum would have to be better moderated and more civil for me to want to start posting there, I also think deliberately posting inflammatory material which ignores some of the forums basic premises is going to generate a fairly standard response, regardless of the discussion forum in question...it's a bit like poking the wasps nest to confirm to yourself how aggressive and nasty all those wasps are.

1) What did he post that was so inflammatory?
2) Aren't these people claiming to be rational, skeptical atheists, shouldn't they at least try to be above responding like children? You dont see any of FTBs "fairly standard responses" from people here when we get inflammatory trolls.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Such as shouting down/trying to shut down anyone who doesn't automatically take their side against A+, such as the conveyor belt of reasons that have been trotted in order to dismiss concerns about how women are treated within the atheist/sceptic community, all the petty bitchy comments about another forum which only exists, only ever came about because of the reaction from certain quarters of the community to a woman daring to publicly comment on being propositioned.

1) Who has shouted anyone down?
2) Complaining about the volume of reasons people have come out with to counter A+s concerns is not nearly the same thing as actually debunking any of them.
3) I think you'll find the reaction was to a woman who came out with a truckload of incredibly serious accusations without a single shred of proof.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It is much easier to suggest hypothetical and rather hyperbolic bans on hooking up than it is to admit that the general reaction to women attending an atheist/sceptic meet feeling harassed or scared or being put off getting involved should perhaps have been a modicum more empathetic than it was..

But isn't that what the FTBers were doing? Wasn't it them who suggested a no sex rule at these conferences?

decimatio · 25-09-2012 03:20AM

yawha wrote: »

Special protection? No.

People should know better than to randomly comment and on judge the physical attractiveness of people of either gender in inappropriate situations.

Of course they should, in our opinion, but they are perfectly entitled to do so.

You say that men are judged by their appearance almost as much as women? I disagree. Especially in male dominated environments such as online forums, or atheist circles. My point is predicated on this fact. I'm not sure I have the energy to argue something which to me is so self evident though...

I suggest you inform the manufacturers of regaine, male plastic surgery clinics, and high brand clothing stores for men then.

Men are judged by their appearance and its only becoming more common as time goes by. Perhaps less so in Ireland, I haven't lived there in years. I'm walking past a plastic surgery clinic just for men as I write this.

A+ isn't a police state... It's simply a space facilitating the discussion of topics so that they don't degrade into introductory lessons to social justice concepts for dissenters.

No, its a space where only one line of thought on issues is accepted.

Similarly, should a safe space for LGBT people have to constantly debate with anti-LGBT people about whether or not their sexual/gender orientations are wrong?

No its not similar at all.

Like it or not but abortion is not a clear cut issue. There is a reasonable argument to be made for the rights and responsibilities of the father for example.

Choosing to have a baby does not just affect the mother. It affects the father financially and legally and affects the fetus.

Please bare in mind this is not my argument and I have no interest in discussing this as we likely agree. My point is that a real argument exists regarding abortion and the ramifications for others.

Not as far as I'm aware.

Wasn't she selling a nude calendar a while back?

Ickle Magoo · 25-09-2012 09:10AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We know skepchick returned year after year, despite the constant harassment which she claimed she got and which she claimed permeated the conferences.

Yeah - and bazillions of women leave the house on a saturday night despite the harassment they'll get...I'd like to think the good out-weighs the crap but that doesn't mean the crap doesn't exist.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think I will keep my shoes thanks, keeps me in a more objective position. For one thing, I can objectively read the actual claim Watson made, because if you can read that and think "yeah, sounds like an average Saturday night", then I'd be terrified to put on your shoes.

Since when did utter ignorance of other peoples reality = objectivism? Welcome to my world - I've had many of the same comments/actions both in real world and on this site...

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense. Their own blogs don't have known specific remits, but another forum would? And how exactly will another forum avoid any of the issues the FTB forum has, given that a lot of the same people are involved? Its not like the same dissenters can sign up to both forums, Zombrex did, so what exactly does it avoid?

It makes perfect sense - last time I looked a blog isn't a discussion forum. How does any site avoid issues of posters breaching forum charters/rules/ethos? They get moderated &/or they get told to f-off...literally, I see at the moment.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

1)1) What did he post that was so inflammatory?
2) Aren't these people claiming to be rational, skeptical atheists, shouldn't they at least try to be above responding like children? You dont see any of FTBs "fairly standard responses" from people here when we get inflammatory trolls.

Who has shouted anyone down?
2) Complaining about the volume of reasons people have come out with to counter A+s concerns is not nearly the same thing as actually debunking any of them.
3) I think you'll find the reaction was to a woman who came out with a truckload of incredibly serious accusations without a single shred of proof.

Aaaaand round we go again, lol. I'm done banging my head against that particular wall...I suspected when you asked that it was entirely so you could start to selectively quote and de-construct what I'm saying rather than take the over-all points on board...

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But isn't that what the FTBers were doing? Wasn't it them who suggested a no sex rule at these conferences?

I have no idea what FTBers suggested...for the gazillionth time, they don't run TAM and they shouldn't be deciding what happens at TAM...and if I haven't made it abundantly clear numerous times already, I neither represent, agree with nor support FTBers. I am just aware of all the women who are atheists/sceptics who are continually conspicuous by their absence as regular posters on the current discussion forums, now at TAM and throwing in my 2c as to why that may be.

Rev Hellfire · 25-09-2012 09:20AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I am just aware of all the women who are atheists/sceptics who are continually conspicuous by their absence as regular posters on the current discussion forums, now at TAM and throwing in my 2c as to why that may be.

I'm curious, have you ever asked these women why they don't attend.

So much of what is written seems to be someone who knows someone or I read it on a site which had a survey, be nice to get it from the horses mouth so to speak.

With the understanding that you're not speaking in an authoritative way of course.

UDP · 25-09-2012 10:15AM

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm curious, have you ever asked these women why they don't attend.

So much of what is written seems to be someone who knows someone or I read it on a site which had a survey, be nice to get it from the horses mouth so to speak.

With the understanding that you're not speaking in an authoritative way of course.

That's the thing. I would like to see some data backing up firstly that there is a problem, what specifically the problem is so. This will allow for a targeted solution to address any problem that may exist. At the moment all I hear conferences are full of harassment of female attendees but no data to back it up whatsoever.

Ickle Magoo · 25-09-2012 12:33PM

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm curious, have you ever asked these women why they don't attend.

So much of what is written seems to be someone who knows someone or I read it on a site which had a survey, be nice to get it from the horses mouth so to speak.

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to offer up unevidenced anecdotes and not just be adding to the "someone who knows someone" category? If the women who are offering their experiences are being dismissed out of hand without solid evidence then why is suddenly first-hand experiences worth hearing?

If you are prepared to take my unevidenced anecdotes then yes, I've had numerous discussions with numerous ladies as to why they're happy to debate in person with people they know but actively avoid discussion forums or even just specific discussions and the popular response is the way "discussion" is often held on-line. Impersonal, snide, aggressive, dog-with-a-bone stuff and lots of women, at least of the women I know I should say but discussion elsewhere on the internetz would concur, if they do wish to indulge in discussion in their free time they would prefer having a discussion rather than having repetitive arguments in policy debate style.

As for why the numbers to events are so low, I can only go on what has been discussed about them in the public arena and, again, my own experiences in life meaning when a woman suggests she has experienced harassment or finds an event made unpleasant by certain behaviours I'm, unfortunately, not going to have the privilege of blindly assuming that just doesn't happen ergo she must be lying.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

With the understanding that you're not speaking in an authoritative way of course.

No offence & none taken - but that should be a given when anonymously posting on the interwebz.

Mark Hamill · 25-09-2012 01:12PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Yeah - and bazillions of women leave the house on a saturday night despite the harassment they'll get...I'd like to think the good out-weighs the crap but that doesn't mean the crap doesn't exist.

Are you really saying that women in general get the kind of constant harassment that Watson claimed to get? Are saying you did? Have you actually read her claim? Is this the average Saturday night out for you:

Watsons claim wrote:

Over the past several years, I’ve been groped, grabbed, touched in other nonconsensual ways, told I can expect to be raped, told I’m a whore, a slut, a bitch, a prude, a dyke, a ****, a twat, told I should watch my back at conferences, told I’m too ugly to be raped, told I don’t have a say in my own treatment because I’ve posed for sexy photos, told I should get a better headshot because that one doesn’t convey how sexy I am in person, told I deserve to be raped – by skeptics and atheists. All by skeptics and atheists. Constantly.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Since when did utter ignorance of other peoples reality = objectivism? Welcome to my world - I've had many of the same comments/actions both in real world and on this site...

Its not ignorance of other peoples reality, I'm not saying harassment doesn't or can't happen to people. I'm not allowing my experiences, or experiences of those I'm close to, to colour my assessment of someone else's claim. Thats an emotive response which will only colour my assessment.
If someone said I constantly get mugged, would you automatically assume they are telling the truth, simply because you where mugged? Even if there story has major holes in it?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It makes perfect sense - last time I looked a blog isn't a discussion forum. How does any site avoid issues of posters breaching forum charters/rules/ethos? They get moderated &/or they get told to f-off...literally, I see at the moment.

Blogs have discussion sections at the bottom of the blog pages, which presumably the person who wrote the blog can already moderate. Then you have the forums on FTB (actually, the forum and the bog discussion sections may be directly connected, I'm not sure) which are already moderated by people who support the likes of skepchick and A+. Why is it that these people think that they can accomplish something on the A+ forums that they couldn't on FTB, given that they have the same powers and/or supports in each one?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Aaaaand round we go again, lol. I'm done banging my head against that particular wall...I suspected when you asked that it was entirely so you could start to selectively quote and de-construct what I'm saying rather than take the over-all points on board...

You mean you suspected I wouldn't let you get away with making unsupported generalisations? Because that is what you keep doing and we keep going round and round because you don't support them.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I have no idea what FTBers suggested...for the gazillionth time, they don't run TAM and they shouldn't be deciding what happens at TAM

So why did you imply that the TAM people suggested a no-sex rule if you didn't know where it was coming from.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I am just aware of all the women who are atheists/sceptics who are continually conspicuous by their absence as regular posters on the current discussion forums, now at TAM and throwing in my 2c as to why that may be.

Well I think it obvious that they where driven away by Watsons claims (the numbers did drop after Watson made those claims). So we have to address those claims. Unfortunately, for Watson, the rational and skeptical and unemotional thing to do is to assess the veracity of those personal claims and see how they apply to the population at large first. Not to deny that any harassment happens or could happen, but to figure out exactly what we can do.

Mark Hamill · 25-09-2012 01:23PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If the women who are offering their experiences are being dismissed out of hand without solid evidence then why is suddenly first-hand experiences worth hearing?

Who has dismissed anyone out of hand? The specific personal claims (like Watsons) have been very few and far between, and the unspecific have been a result of a poorly worded survey which, afair, asked both men and women if they ever felt uncomfortable at the conferences.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If you are prepared to take my unevidenced anecdotes then yes, I've had numerous discussions with numerous ladies as to why they're happy to debate in person with people they know but actively avoid discussion forums or even just specific discussions and the popular response is the way "discussion" is often held on-line.

So these women are more comfortable in a real life setting than online? But I thought there was constant physical and emotional sexual harassment in real life? Thats what Watson claimed.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm, unfortunately, not going to have the privilege of blindly assuming that just doesn't happen ergo she must be lying.

But you will keep the privilege of misrepresenting other peoples view points on the issue though, wont you? No-one has blindly assumed that it doesn't happen.

Rev Hellfire · 25-09-2012 01:57PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But you will keep the privilege of misrepresenting other peoples view points on the issue though, wont you? No-one has blindly assumed that it doesn't happen.

In fairness it was her viewpoint I was looking for, speaking for herself and no-one else when it comes to that post.

Turtwig · 25-09-2012 04:00PM

Kind of off-topic but who wouldn't be interested in a debate between Watson's feminists and these feminists?

Nodin · 25-09-2012 04:18PM

Jernal wrote: »

Kind of off-topic but who wouldn't be interested in a debate between Watson's feminists and these feminists?

(catholic feminist position)
"Fuck off"

robindch · 25-09-2012 05:50PM

Jernal wrote: »

Kind of off-topic but who wouldn't be interested in a debate between Watson's feminists and these feminists?

That fist is clenched in a way that reminds me vaguely of something.

Hotblack Desiato · 25-09-2012 06:11PM

This?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Aspen

Nodin · 25-09-2012 06:31PM

ninja900 wrote: »

This?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Aspen

He may have been thinking something more Maplethorpe-ian.

Sir Pompous Righteousness · 25-09-2012 06:51PM

Since when was it misogynistic to ask a girl on a date? This is militant feminism gone wild.

robindch · 25-09-2012 06:58PM

ninja900 wrote: »

This?

Nope.

Rev Hellfire · 25-09-2012 07:06PM

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Since when was it misogynistic to ask a girl on a date? This is militant feminism gone wild.

Its not if you get written authorization from her before hand, anything less is just plain creepy and we don't do that any-more guys.