So having gotten roundly called for her shameful behavior at TAM (The Amazing Meeting), Amy ‘crying over a T-shirt’ Roth from Skepchick has gone approval seeking! Not from female bastions of the secular community like Harriet Hall (who clearly was distancing herself from folks like the evermore erratic and fringe Skepchicks), but ironically from what under almost any other circumstances the Skepchicks would call the ’white male privilege’ of the secular community. However in reality she has not actual got any! NONE!
Y’see this is one of those ‘dissent from Darwin’ type stunts that the Discovery institute would pull. For those who don’t know the dissent from Darwin thing was done to create the appearance of dissent when in fact essentially none existed, just like skepchick are suggesting that there is all this ‘hate against women’ when in fact essentially none exists (beyond criticism and/or trolling). So how did the Discovery Institute and Skepchick achieve such a remarkable feat? Why by using language so broad that anyone and everyone, including myself, could agree with it.
In the case of the dissent from Darwin the statement was basically that all theories including evolution should be subject to critical scrutiny (well of course! who could disagree?), and in the case of Skepchick it’s ‘speak out against hate against women’ (well of course! who could disagree?). Now firstly, if someone had asked me this question, my immediate response would be ‘why is Skepchick embracing sexism on this issue? Shouldn’t we be against all hate, irrespective of gender?’ Indeed at least two of the respondents actually elucidated to this. Kudos to:
Dave “American Atheists stands by all its members, supporters, and allies, and we will not tolerate hate directed at any of us. Period” Silverman, and Ronald “Hate-filled invective has been directed at many different people, male and female” Lindsey.
Then of course my second question could be, ‘why are you asking me such loaded questions?’ Really what do you expect me to say? is there ANYONE who would disagree with that position? I mean if these people had been asked to speak out against hatred against males? or blacks? or puppies? how would they have responded? “No hatred against all of the above is obviously okay”?, of course they wouldn’t. It’s such an obviously manipulative question. Thankfully most of the respondent gave measured answers not far off where I would have planted my banner.
I would have started with the obvious and fair first question.
“do you think there is a real problem with ‘hate against women’ in this community? “
I’ve got to say I’ve seen essentially NONE.
I’ll tell you what I have seen, I’ve seen people get called idiots for saying and doing stupid things, y’know stuff about elevators (Rebecca Watson) and T-shirts (Amy Roth), although it is very conspicuous to those who can read what is obviously not said, that NONE of those who speak out against ‘hate against women’ actually specify that they think either Amy Roth or Rebecca Watson had a valid grievance in either case.
Indeed, while Amy Roths introduction to Nick Lee was glowing, if she had actually bothered to read what he wrote, she might have found precious little support for either her or Rebecca Watson.
“Not every flirtation is unwelcome attention, until one side announces it is, and then it should stop.”
So according to Nick there was nothing wrong with what happened to Rebecca Watson in the elevator. NOTHING.
“It is also complicated by the right of people to say what is on their minds even if it makes us feel uncomfortable.”
And there’s Amy ‘crying over the T-shirt’ Roth CLEARLY rebutted in the very next sentence.
Calling someone an idiot for acting like an idiot does not become ‘hate against women’ simply because the person in question was a woman. This is one of the two general categories of the ‘hate against women’ that Skepchick encounters. Look it’s obvious, how would people respond if I ‘embraced victim-hood’ like the Skepchicks. That is any time anyone said anything ‘nasty’ against me I simply claimed that this was just sexism and misandry? Yup, I would expect exactly the mockery that the Skepchicks get. Far from sexism, this treatment represents equality in the secular community in that these people (the Skepchicks) are being judged on what they say and do, rather than on their gender.
The second general category of ‘hate against women’ Skepchick encounters is people trolling them. Now it’s my reckoning that of the three ‘leaders’ Skepchick have thus far got to ‘speak out’ on this, two probably have no idea what trolling is. Trolls do not hate anyone; they just get off on how easy it is to control people, particularly people who are hypersensitive on an issue (e.g. feminism) by pushing the right psychological buttons. Skepchick is grade A trolling material and are seen to be some of the most easily puppeteered people on the webs. What trolls will do is type some manipulative reactionary shit into a comment box and then laugh as those being trolled dance like puppets on strings. With experience it’s easy to spot most trolls. To be honest it is shameful that the Skepchick are so easily trolled as it shows their grotesque naivety to the interwebs. So how can I be so sure that the Skepchick is just getting trolled? Well it’s very easy, unless you actually think that there are really hundreds of atheists who are looking to rape Rebecca Watson (in which case the atheist community would have a huge fractional population of folks intending to be rapists and the ‘leaders’ response would be ENTIRELY inadequate), SHE’S BEING TROLLED! Her ‘rape threats’ are exactly as valid as the ones I got on my first video that addressed this,
and to be honest her parading these around like a ‘trophy proof’ of misogyny in the atheist community at conference after conference makes her, and anyone else who is taken in by it look as stupid to the new internet savvy generation of atheists as Oprah and the 9000 penises that she was worried a pedophile syndicate had ready to rape children.
Really leaders, you are showing your age in the internet generation to be taken in by this sort of thing. There is only one way to win against a troll. DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
Skepchick do not only openly violate this law, they put up glowing neon signs saying ‘we seek out and feed any and all trolls’. On the internet this is almost as bad as feeding the gremlins after dark then throwing them in a lake Superior, then complaining about the gremlin infestation, it’s the equivalent of putting a big sign on your own back saying ‘kick me’ then crying about the ‘sexism’ of those who kick you.
Other than that, where are these people who ‘hate women’? Does anyone actually have any evidence for this ‘hate against women’ that is NOT someone being calling out someone for saying or doing something outrageously stupid, or being trolled, or some mixture of the two?
In which case I have to ask these Leaders, who exactly are these people that they talking out against? Where are they? If no one actually knows, then why are they speaking out against a problem that doesn’t exist? Inquiring minds need to know!