JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF 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.

Tags elevatorgate , feminism , rebecca watson , sexism

Reply
Old 27th July 2011, 01:01 PM   #281
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Britain, near the middle
Posts: 9,553
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
Shall we look at this from a different angle? The oft-mentioned buzzo seems to have made finding a girlfriend and/or hooking up at TAM his main objective (possibly life-long ambition.) To that end he has employed every tactic that has been discussed here and quite a few that we haven't gotten around to yet.

He is quite arrogant, confident and rude while pursuing this objective. All those adjectives that get tossed around when the "nice" guys grumble about "bad boys." The "nice cans" email and it's pouty follow up could have easily been written by him.

Has it worked? Not at all. He has struck out to a truly astounding degree and created such a reputation for himself that finding a mate within the skeptical movement now seems unlikely - even if he totally changed his ways.

On the other hand, the people I know who have hooked up within the movement all started as friends. They got to talking about something they both enjoyed, found common ground and later common interest. The time between the initial cerebral connection and the later physical one varies greatly, from minutes to months but that initial conversation is a constant factor.
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?
__________________
My Blog.
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 01:32 PM   #282
bookitty
Philosopher
 
bookitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,539
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
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?
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.
bookitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 01:35 PM   #283
meg
psychic reader
 
meg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kansas USA
Posts: 1,737
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post

TAM and other conferences are *not* workplaces. They are social occasions.
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.
meg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 01:39 PM   #284
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Britain, near the middle
Posts: 9,553
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
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.
Still missing the point.

Do you want men to behave as though there is a chance they might have sex with a woman, or do you want them to behave as though there is not?
__________________
My Blog.

Last edited by Ivor the Engineer; 27th July 2011 at 01:41 PM.
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 01:52 PM   #285
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Britain, near the middle
Posts: 9,553
Originally Posted by meg View Post
<snip>

Encouraging diversity in TAM attendees is an admirable goal. It might mean changing a little, though, if you want everyone to feel welcome.
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.
__________________
My Blog.
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 01:52 PM   #286
Last of the Fraggles
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,007
Originally Posted by meg View Post
Encouraging diversity in TAM attendees is an admirable goal. It might mean changing a little, though, if you want everyone to feel welcome.
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'
Last of the Fraggles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 02:15 PM   #287
bookitty
Philosopher
 
bookitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,539
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
Still missing the point.

Do you want men to behave as though there is a chance they might have sex with a woman, or do you want them to behave as though there is not?
Are those my only options?
__________________
No more cupcakes for me, thanks.
bookitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 02:20 PM   #288
bookitty
Philosopher
 
bookitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,539
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
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.
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.
bookitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 02:23 PM   #289
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Britain, near the middle
Posts: 9,553
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
Are those my only options?
Yes. The two options cover all possibilities. Either a man is to be allowed to think and therefore behave as though he might have an opportunity to have sex with a woman in the future, or he is not.

Which is it?
__________________
My Blog.
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 02:27 PM   #290
Dunstan
Illuminator
 
Dunstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sunnyvale Trailer Park
Posts: 4,292
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
If it's a bastion of male chauvinism and misogyny, so what?
Thanks for finally cutting to the chase.
Dunstan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 02:33 PM   #291
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Britain, near the middle
Posts: 9,553
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
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 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.
__________________
My Blog.
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 02:35 PM   #292
meg
psychic reader
 
meg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kansas USA
Posts: 1,737
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
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.
Well said!
meg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 02:38 PM   #293
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,922
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
Attractive? What does that matter? I'm sure that, divorced from his behavior, some women would find buzzo attractive. Eye of the beholder and all that. His looks are not the major contributing factor for failure.

buzzo is a rather unique case in that there is a wealth of evidence available in comparison to the average TAM attendee. He has been repeating the same behavior at the same event for years now and had a consistent result. While it may not live up to your extremely rigid, personal standard of "skepticism," it is interesting enough to mention in the thread that you set up specifically to collect anecdotes.
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.)
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 02:40 PM   #294
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,922
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
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.
This is a red herring question dodge.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 02:44 PM   #295
bookitty
Philosopher
 
bookitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,539
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
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.
And how does emulating the Taliban promote critical thinking?
__________________
No more cupcakes for me, thanks.
bookitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 02:46 PM   #296
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 16,531
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
Still missing the point.

Do you want men to behave as though there is a chance they might have sex with a woman, or do you want them to behave as though there is not?
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.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 02:48 PM   #297
bookitty
Philosopher
 
bookitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,539
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
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.)
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.
bookitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 02:50 PM   #298
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,922
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
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.
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?
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 27th July 2011 at 02:57 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 03:03 PM   #299
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,922
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
Here is a direct stand-alone question. What evidence of sexism would fit your personal definition?
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.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 27th July 2011 at 03:05 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 03:12 PM   #300
Thrasher
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
Bookitty - Did you miss this post? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...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.
Thrasher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 03:20 PM   #301
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Britain, near the middle
Posts: 9,553
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
In your opinion how different is the behavior is between these choices?
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:
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.
So you sometimes move in to snog your grandmother and sex just magically happens with women you fancy?
__________________
My Blog.
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 03:29 PM   #302
Thrasher
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
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.
Thrasher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 03:36 PM   #303
bookitty
Philosopher
 
bookitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,539
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
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.
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.
bookitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 03:38 PM   #304
bookitty
Philosopher
 
bookitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,539
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post

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.
People have asked that buzzo not be invited back to TAM. Nothing came of it and his blog has been featured on the front page of the JREF site.
__________________
No more cupcakes for me, thanks.
bookitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 03:43 PM   #305
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Britain, near the middle
Posts: 9,553
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
People have asked that buzzo not be invited back to TAM. Nothing came of it and his blog has been featured on the front page of the JREF site.
Why hasn't he been arrested by the police?
__________________
My Blog.
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 03:51 PM   #306
Thrasher
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
See here's the funny thing - skepticism as a movement has a goal.
What is the goal?

Quote:
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.
Why do you call them geeks? How incredibly sexist of you.

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.
Thrasher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 03:55 PM   #307
Thrasher
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
People have asked that buzzo not be invited back to TAM. Nothing came of it and his blog has been featured on the front page of the JREF site.
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.
Thrasher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 04:02 PM   #308
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Britain, near the middle
Posts: 9,553
Isn't Dr Adequate married to Articulett?

What did she make of his antics?
__________________
My Blog.
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 04:10 PM   #309
Thrasher
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
It happened to her. The best way for her to respond is in whatever fashion she chooses.
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:
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.
How do you know she thought that was the best response? How do you know she wasn't afraid of confrontation and chose a less than optimal response?

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:
Although your advice that she calmly spell it out and add something like "don't do that." is delightfully ironic. I lol'd.
Ironic in what way? It's entirely consistent with everything I've said, which is that people need to be speak out when something bothers them and consider how their actions influence the dynamics of the relationship.
Thrasher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 05:04 PM   #310
bookitty
Philosopher
 
bookitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,539
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
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?


How do you know she thought that was the best response? How do you know she wasn't afraid of confrontation and chose a less than optimal response?

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.


Ironic in what way? It's entirely consistent with everything I've said, which is that people need to be speak out when something bothers them and consider how their actions influence the dynamics of the relationship.
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.

Last edited by bookitty; 27th July 2011 at 05:11 PM.
bookitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 05:19 PM   #311
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 56,111
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
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?
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?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 05:52 PM   #312
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,922
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
....

Although your advice that she calmly spell it out and add something like "don't do that." is delightfully ironic. I lol'd.
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.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 05:54 PM   #313
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,922
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
What is the goal?
For me personally, my goal is to increase critical thinking skills within the collective human mind.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 05:56 PM   #314
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,922
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
Isn't Dr Adequate married to Articulett?

What did she make of his antics?
That's what RandFan tells us.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 07:46 PM   #315
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 56,111
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
Isn't Dr Adequate married to Articulett?

What did she make of his antics?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
That's what RandFan tells us.
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?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.

Last edited by RandFan; 27th July 2011 at 07:48 PM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 08:20 PM   #316
Thrasher
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
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.
I agree. I just think she sent a mixed message.
Thrasher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 09:18 PM   #317
Thrasher
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
Are you familiar with Rebecca Watson and a little thing they're calling "elevatorgate?"
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:
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.
Who said it wasn't applicable? Seriously, enough with the straw.

Quote:
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.
Wait a sec...I thought you said, "It happened to her. The best way for her to respond is in whatever fashion she chooses." Sorry, I forgot. You're a woman, so you get to comment on her actions. I can't cuz I'm a man.

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:
There should be no response because who is stupid enough to send that email in the first place?
Apparently it wasn't so stupid since she replied back talking about the length and turgidity of his penis, which had nothing whatsoever to do with her breasts or her job search.


Quote:
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.
...
Thrasher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 09:19 PM   #318
Thrasher
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.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Thrasher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 10:07 PM   #319
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 56,111
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
Skeptic Ginger - here's a very short (30 seconds) blog about sexism in the skeptical community. I think it's good evidence.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2011, 10:34 PM   #320
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,922
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
I agree. I just think she sent a mixed message.
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.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.