|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
27th July 2011, 01:01 PM | #281 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,774
|
How does that address the point I was making?
Ms. Watson (and you, apparently) want all men to have the idea "this woman does not want to have sex with me" running through their brains when they interact with women. Well, here I am. I am that man. Do you want more men to think the way I do? |
27th July 2011, 01:32 PM | #282 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,732
|
So will you use your psychic skills to try for the million dollars?
I have no idea what Watson wants all men to think and neither do you. Actually, she said nothing about what they think at all. How they act towards her is a completely different subject. What goes on in your brain is your business. How you treat other people becomes their business. |
__________________
No more cupcakes for me, thanks. |
|
27th July 2011, 01:35 PM | #283 |
psychic reader
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kansas USA
Posts: 1,811
|
Thank you for bringing that up, Ivor! I've been waiting for someone to get around to this.
You are right, - mostly. Most of the people at TAM are not there as a condition of their job. (Though some are, like JREF staffers, speakers, and perhaps journalists covering the event for other skeptical publications) So the rules about workplace harassment do not directly apply, because workplace harassment is against the law, and is a very serious matter. Employers can be sued and experience financial loss, and employees can lose their jobs, their professional licenses, or their entire careers. If a workplace harassment charge is filed, an investigation most definitely would take place, all parties involved would be interviewed, and evidence would be accumulated and examined. By the employer, any agreed upon mediators, and any legal officials involved. All accusations and evidence would be kept as confidential as possible, not only to spare the feelings of all parties involved, which could range from mild discomfort to extreme embarrassment and humiliation, but to also spare their careers from the rumors, inuendos and ill-formed conclusions that well meaning (or not) colleagues leap to when they find out part of the story and fill in the blanks for themselves. So, again, Ivor, you are right. TAM is *not* a workplace (for most of the attendees). No charges have been filed, no investigation has to be done, no mediators need to be called in. I don't know that I would agree with you, but for the sake of argument, let's say that TAM is, as you say, a social occasion. There are LOTS of different kinds of social occasions, and what is considered appropriate behavior for one is not necessarily so for another. A stag party at a strip club, cocktails with a few close friends, bridge club at the senior center, a book club, camping with your best friend, Thanksgiving at your mother's, and a $10,000 a plate political fundraiser dinner are all social occasions. "Social Occasion" does not automatically mean "anything goes". Encouraging diversity in TAM attendees is an admirable goal. It might mean changing a little, though, if you want everyone to feel welcome. |
27th July 2011, 01:39 PM | #284 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,774
|
|
27th July 2011, 01:52 PM | #285 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,774
|
Who wants this? It seems a little cabal of women who go to TAM have decided that the primary objective should be to get more women to attend.
Why? Do the majority of people who attend TAM want more women to go enough to start clamping down on other people's behaviour? If it's a bastion of male chauvinism and misogyny, so what? No one forces or compels you or any other women to attend. No one excludes women from attending either. If you don't like the people at TAM, have your own sceptics bash somewhere else and specify all who attend must either have a vagina or have had their balls removed. |
27th July 2011, 01:52 PM | #286 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
|
It's an odd word that. It used to mean something to do with different being OK, but now it seems to mean everyone will be homogenized to the point where nobody steps out of line.
In a commercial organisation I guess I can kind of understand the need for it although I'm not sure its as positive a thing as its marketed to be, in social settings... well, I dunno. I really wouldn't like my stag party, cocktails with friends or seniors bridge club to have to be socially diverse, especially if it meant having to stop doing the things we like doing at them to accommodate the new arrivals. Events like TAM fall into a sort of quasi-social, commercial organisation so there's arguments to be made for encouraging the modern interpretation of diversity. Looking at it the other way though and putting my contrary hat on then people who proposition women in lifts are also part of 'diversity' and, while I don't personally feel like going on a crusade to stop the lift propositioners feeling left out there has to be some give and take between 'you need to change to make me feel welcome' and 'i need to change to fit in with this group or just leave them alone to do their own thing' |
27th July 2011, 02:15 PM | #287 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,732
|
|
__________________
No more cupcakes for me, thanks. |
|
27th July 2011, 02:20 PM | #288 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,732
|
See here's the funny thing - skepticism as a movement has a goal. In order to advance towards that goal, the philosophy behind the movement needs to reach as many people as possible. Purposefully excluding large groups of people is contrary to that goal.
Purposefully excluding people from a movement based on science and rationality because they are not open to indiscriminate sexual advance makes the movement look a bit ridiculous. "Woman, you will be hit on by geeks and like it! Or you can go elsewhere!" See, silly. |
__________________
No more cupcakes for me, thanks. |
|
27th July 2011, 02:23 PM | #289 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,774
|
|
27th July 2011, 02:27 PM | #290 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,289
|
|
27th July 2011, 02:33 PM | #291 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,774
|
No one is being excluded from the scepticism movement. TAM is one event. Women and anyone else who finds the people who attend that one event offensive can set up their own sceptical event for like-minded individuals or attend events organised by people they do get on with.
BTW, there are plenty of powerful and influential organisations that have significant amounts prejudice within them at all levels. I don't think sexism is a barrier to a group having power or influence. |
27th July 2011, 02:35 PM | #292 |
psychic reader
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kansas USA
Posts: 1,811
|
|
27th July 2011, 02:38 PM | #293 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
You have a long way to go here bookitty, to understand the scientific process and rules of logic. Now you are comparing apples to oranges and you've not addressed your prior mistake of calling an association, 'causation'.
I am not drawing a conclusion that X causes Y. I am trying to better define a cause that has already been claimed by others for why there are more men at our events than women. Someone else can establish that the claimed sexism is the cause of the gender imbalance. I am trying to establish whether or not the claimed sexism actually exists and I am trying to better define just what is meant by sexism in this case. (More skepticism 101.) |
27th July 2011, 02:40 PM | #294 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
|
27th July 2011, 02:44 PM | #295 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,732
|
|
__________________
No more cupcakes for me, thanks. |
|
27th July 2011, 02:46 PM | #296 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
In your opinion how different is the behavior is between these choices?
In thinking how I act towards women that I'm sexually attracted to versus women I'm not attracted to, while I certainly would behave differently towards these groups it wouldn't be so much so that my behavior towards someone from one group would be inappropriate towards someone from the other. |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
27th July 2011, 02:48 PM | #297 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,732
|
Oh my gawd. Can you once, just once, actually address what I've said instead showing off your knowledge of terminology. We get it, you have the fallacies page bookmarked.
Here is a direct stand-alone question. What evidence of sexism would fit your personal definition? |
__________________
No more cupcakes for me, thanks. |
|
27th July 2011, 02:50 PM | #298 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
Bookitty, despite the fact you did not recognize it as so, that was an honestly sincere answer. You are in a skeptics forum, not a social site. We use certain principles to establish facts and you are making the most basic mistakes. How else am I to address your errors in logic?
|
27th July 2011, 03:03 PM | #299 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
Commenting on a speaker's sexual attributes or related appearance under most circumstances is sexist, whether done by men or women. There might be a few situations where it was either pertinent or mutually acceptable.
But the come-ons outside of the formal presentations depend totally on the approach. I gave some examples at some point in this discussion. "Hey baby, you look like you need a man" for example, would clearly be sexist. What EG said as reported by RW, it's really hard to picture circumstances where, "don't take this the wrong way" is a sexist come on. And just the fact someone is sexually attracted is not sexist by itself either. |
27th July 2011, 03:12 PM | #300 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
|
Bookitty - Did you miss this post? http://www.internationalskeptics.com...17#post7406717
There's so much straw being thrown around here every time a crow flies overhead I think it's a monkey. I believe Dr. Buzzo had a camera on his shoe and Dr Adequate was giving out unsolicited tonsillectomies with his tongue (are they really doctors?). I stated unequivocally that this was unacceptable and that they should have been tossed from TAM and banned for life. I don't think anyone has "dismissed" those incidents nor do I think anyone has disagreed with my suggested actions by the JREF. What Dr. Adequate did was a crime - sexual assault. Somebody should have notified the JREF. RemieV said she was too upset to pass it on. I think if I had been there and witnessed it, I would have put him on the ground before anyone had a chance to stop me. I would have definitely pitched a fit with the JREF until they did something about it. What Dr. Buzzo did is a crime in just about every state, and in those few states where it's not explicitly a crime, it could be prosecuted under other statutes. You have the legal right to take pictures of people in public, but you don't have a right to take pictures of them when there's a reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus taking a picture of a woman in her skirt is legal even if unwanted, but it's illegal to take a picture up her skirt. Meg's wonderful speech and the JREF's announcement about unwanted sexual advances would not work with those kinds of guys. They need eight-knuckle enlightenment. Do those guys mean there's a problem in the skeptical community? If the JREF was notified and did nothing, then, yes, that's a huge problem. Did people not speak up to the JREF? If yes, then it's a problem, and that's the fault of everyone who witnessed it regardless of gender. But as I understand it, over 1,000 people attend TAM. Put together any group that size, and you'll have at least a dozen truly messed up individuals walking around. That's par for the course. |
27th July 2011, 03:20 PM | #301 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,774
|
With women you are sexually interested in and whom you think might want to have sex with you, you inform them of your sexual interest. With women you are not sexually interested in you do not.
Quote:
|
27th July 2011, 03:29 PM | #302 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
|
Did you even read the link? She questioned whether she had given the guy any indication that joking about her "cans" was acceptable. She asked herself, "Is is because I wear low-cut tops? Is it because I curse? Is it because I’m too permissive when it comes to sexist jokes?"
Instead of telling the guy it was inappropriate, what did she do? She wrote this: I can’t believe you just said that to me. Nice cans?! What are you, Larry from Three’s Company? Jeez. Next time I see you I’m measuring your dick just so I can make references about its size, henceforth. Software huh? Yeah I bet. Oooooh! She responded to sexual banter with sexual banter and actually upped the ante (suggesting to measure a penis and commenting on its turgidity is, IMHO, more sexual than joking about cans). He wrote back, "“If you want to measure my thingy, you’ll need a yardstick.” All things considered, it seemed like he was continuing the playful banter. Her reply was, "You seemed so nice & quiet in person. And then you got behind a computer….sigh." Talk about doing a 180!! She's perfectly welcome to not want to engage in that kind of banter, but she handled it poorly. She should have written something like this: I'm offended that you made a joke about my breasts. Maybe you think I'm up for that kind of banter with you, but I'm telling you right now that I'm not. If I've given you the impression otherwise, I'm correcting that impression now. That's the adult way to handle the situation. She makes her feelings clearly understood. If he continues, then he's clearly in the wrong. You may think she was clear, but at best I see mixed messages. |
27th July 2011, 03:36 PM | #303 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,732
|
It happened to her. The best way for her to respond is in whatever fashion she chooses. She choose to mock the guy. Maybe it made her feel better, maybe it didn't but it was the response that she decided was the best option under those circumstances. For her, it was.
Although your advice that she calmly spell it out and add something like "don't do that." is delightfully ironic. I lol'd. |
__________________
No more cupcakes for me, thanks. |
|
27th July 2011, 03:38 PM | #304 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,732
|
|
__________________
No more cupcakes for me, thanks. |
|
27th July 2011, 03:43 PM | #305 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,774
|
|
27th July 2011, 03:51 PM | #306 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
|
What is the goal?
Quote:
What it seems many of us are saying is not at all what you claim. What I'm saying is this: The people attending skeptical events are just like everyone else on the planet, so don't expect them to behave any differently in social situations just because they are skeptics. During the events themselves people should treat each other with courtesy. If during the formal proceedings of the event somebody does something that you makes you feel uncomfortable, address that person directly. If you feel physically threatened or are touched inappropriately, contact the organizer of the event and even the police if warranted. While we're not going to intervene in the course of normal human interaction, we won't tolerate egregious conduct. After hours many attendees engage in lively and sometimes rowdy activities. This, too, is not exclusive to the skeptical world. Because people are often away from home, they are sometimes more uninhibited than normal. Also, because these events are of limited duration and people may not see each other again (or not for a long time), the normal rituals of familiarity are greatly accelerated. Therefore, choose your after-hours events and companions wisely so you don't find yourself in uncomfortable situations. |
27th July 2011, 03:55 PM | #307 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
|
Do you have some specifics? Before I pitch a fit about the JREF, I would like to know what was said to whom. It's one thing if somebody says in passing, "That Dr Buzzo is a perv. He should be asked not to attend in the future." It's another thing entirely to formally contact the JREF and say, "Dr. Buzzo had a camera on his shoe while attending the seminars at TAM. He was trying to take pictures up skirts. This is a crime and highly offensive. He needs to be banned from TAM."
And then I'd like to see the JREF's response, if any. |
27th July 2011, 04:02 PM | #308 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,774
|
Isn't Dr Adequate married to Articulett?
What did she make of his antics? |
27th July 2011, 04:10 PM | #309 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
|
What kind of logic is that? The best way is whatever she chooses? Just like if she chooses for it to be sexist, it must be so?
Quote:
I didn't see it as mocking at all. I saw it as playing along. It was, quite frankly, like something a couple of teenagers would say. "You have nice cans!" "How would you like it if I measured you pee pee, Mr. Softie?" "You'd need a yardstick! Nyuk!" Yeh, real mature.
Quote:
|
27th July 2011, 05:04 PM | #310 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,732
|
Are you familiar with Rebecca Watson and a little thing they're calling "elevatorgate?"
Why is that considering how one's action will influence the dynamic of a relationship is not applicable to men who are rude or inappropriate. The true and proper response to an email that says "This has nothing to do with what you've asked, I just want to talk about your tits." is nothing. There should be no response because who is stupid enough to send that email in the first place? ETA: And I'd love to discuss this further but I need to go boil some pectin. Because there are men who treat women as fellow travelers on this weird road we call life. They don't think of them as sperm-dumps, ego-boosts, pussy-guardians, status symbols and decoration, but truly equals. And those men don't just get sex whenever they want it. They get jam. Homemade strawberry jam that is so good you want to lick the bowl. In every possible metaphoric and literal sense. |
__________________
No more cupcakes for me, thanks. |
|
27th July 2011, 05:19 PM | #311 |
Mormon Atheist
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,135
|
Please tell me who it is that is defending these a-holes as I want to tear them a new one also.
One of the problems that I have with this whole affair is the lumping together of those who feel there is something here to discuss and misogynistic boorish jerks. Epepke and Skeptic Ginger don't likely send those kinds of emails and I assure you that no one will ever accuse me of the same because they turn my stomach. Do we have to put everyone into one of two boxes? I DO care. I might not agree with you as to the solution but I damn well do care. |
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch? |
|
27th July 2011, 05:52 PM | #312 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
Not if you are telling one guy not to do that to you. It's not the same as video blogging to the world, "guys don't do that" and then getting self righteous about it.
From where I stand the way LilaMae handled the sexist email sounds like she had things well under control without playing the victim role. That is what being liberated means. |
27th July 2011, 05:54 PM | #313 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
|
27th July 2011, 05:56 PM | #314 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
|
27th July 2011, 07:46 PM | #315 |
Mormon Atheist
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,135
|
They are married. I've no Idea what Articulett thinks of Dr. A. I don't know enough to comment. I'm deeply troubled by the accusations. I hope nothing like that ever happens again.
My wife and I lived for 5 months with them. My wife and I had nothing but good experiences with both. |
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch? |
|
27th July 2011, 08:20 PM | #316 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
|
|
27th July 2011, 09:18 PM | #317 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
|
Do you have any evidence that Rebecca said anything other than "No" to the person who invited her for coffee? Nothing I've seen or heard indicated that she told the guy she felt uncomfortable. She just told everybody else.
Quote:
Quote:
FYI, that's more straw. She didn't quote her e-mail to him, but apparently she was asking him about finding a job and networking. He made a *joke* that having "nice cans" should open some doors. So it's not like it had "nothing to do with" what she asked.
Quote:
Quote:
|
27th July 2011, 09:19 PM | #318 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
|
Skeptic Ginger - here's a very short (30 seconds) blog about sexism in the skeptical community. I think it's good evidence.
|
|||
27th July 2011, 10:07 PM | #319 |
Mormon Atheist
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,135
|
|
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch? |
|
27th July 2011, 10:34 PM | #320 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
Not if she didn't see the behavior as some horrid travesty of feminism. If she felt the need to point it out to the guy, but beyond that she wasn't moved, there's no mixed message there.
I believe in choosing my battles. Some guy commenting I look hot is not one of them. Some creep telling me I need a man to fix my liberated attitude, that requires a different response. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|