Accordingly, I should make something perfectly clear. Where in the title I have indicated that I am an anti-feminist, I am still very much an advocate of equal rights for everyone, minorities, men, women, and assorted others. My anti-feminism does not mean that I wish to see women stripped of their rights (except for my woman of course, but that's a whole other story). I have always supported equal rights for everyone, and my anti-feminist stance in no way changes this position. I am anti-feminist because I now perceive feminism as a means to strip others of their rights. As I shall later argue, feminism is the opposite of egalitarianism in that it wishes to convey special privileges upon one group while stripping away the rights of another group.
Moving on to the Broken Clock; I was raised as a Fundamentalist Christian. Southern Baptist to be exact. When I finally dropped religion due to an increased understanding of it, I disposed quickly of some of the more obvious teachings of that religion. Other ideologies were harder to drop, as the influence my former religion had on my perspective was less blatant in them. An example of this was my political ideology. For some time I had failed to realize that my conservative Republican philosophy was a byproduct of my religious heritage. Eventually though, I weeded the troublesome influences out. At least the ones I am aware of.
One of the influences from my upbringing was the idea of Feminists as a group misandristic harpies who having already won equal rights, were now mad with power and intended to remove all vestiges of masculinity from society through the forced feminization of men. I wanted to discard this notion, but unfortunately every time I looked into Feminist teachings, I kept finding exactly that. I thought that I had failed to remove my blinders. I felt as though I was missing something somewhere. As a good skeptic, I finally decided to suspend judgement until more understanding unfolded. I became for quite some time agnostic toward Feminism.
Until now. Now I have come to realize, through skeptic blogs nonetheless, that the Southern Baptist broken clock was actually telling the right story about Feminism.
Enter the players in this story:
Rebecca Watson, aka Skepchick: Narcisistic tart, attention whore, amateur skeptic, feminist.
Rose: A charming young lady who had the audacity to disagree with Rebecca.
Stef McGraw: College student and skeptic who was silly enough to disagree with Rebecca.
Paula Kirby: Washington Post columnist that is too blind to see the sexism inherent in the system.
Elevator Guy: A poor schmuck who had the misfortune of getting on an elevator with Rebecca.
PZ Meyers: Professor of biology, author of science blog Pharyngula, skeptic, unwitting feminist pawn.
Phil Plait: Astonomer, author, owner of the BadAstronomy.com website, skeptic, unwitting feminist pawn.
Fundifeminazi Army: A horde of irrational, malicious fundamentalist feminist Nazi's.
Unbrainwashed Skeptics: The usually shouted down voice of reason in this comedy.
Glossary of Terms
Fundifeminazi: Feminist Nazi's that use irrational arguments, ad hominem attacks, and insubstantial blanket denouncements to silence rational debate in a manner reminiscent to Christian fundamentalist tactics.
Garrison: Taken from South Park's Mr/Mrs Garrison, a Garrison is an attention seeking male or female that obtains a sex change operation in order to engage in homosexual relationships with people of their current gender. While Garrisons do not figure directly into the story, Rebeca Watson is such an attention whore that one could easily see her becoming a Garrison the moment the spotlight dims on her. Besides, I've always wanted a chance to use that definition. Isn't making up words fun?
Guynoids: See Manginas.
Guynocologist: A male feminist theorist.
Male Privilege: Logical fallacy which states that since a handful of stodgy old men hold considerable power and influence, then all men hold considerable power and influence. Compare to the statement "Some cows are named Betsy, therefore all cows are named Betsy.". The term in this play has evolved to read "Wealthy, Older, Distinguished, Caucasian Men Named Richard Dawkins", though there is some regressive fluctuation as the original term is still required at times for a blanket dismissal of any male who disagrees with anything a feminist says.
Mansplaining: (from urban dictionary) A meaningless term used by small-time radical feminists on Internet blogs. Essentially utilized as a way to shut down any male- or person they perceive as male- who dares to express an opinion that differs even slightly from their own warped version of reality. Even the fymynysts are unsure of exactly what it's supposed to mean- only that it has the word "man" in it and therefore must be bad and evil.
Manginas: Subservient male feminists, scorned, mocked, and insulted frequently by their Fundimeminazi mistresses throughout this story.
Misogyny: Hatred of women. Like sexists, all males are misogynists, and only women that disagree with feminists are misogynists.
Objectification: Disappointingly has nothing to do with Jeff Gord's human furniture. Objectification in this sense is the the notion that someone is perceived as an instrument of ones sexual desires with no regard for their intelligence or other redeeming characteristics.
Rape Culture: A fictitious culture and classic example of loaded language created by feminists for shock value, causing the hearer to think "Rape is a culture? How horrible!", thereby gaining followers through scare tactics. Rape Culture defined by feminists theory as a culture whose attitudes, norms, practices, and media condone, normalize, excuse, or tolerate sexual violence against women simply does not exist in the civilized world.
Sexist: Someone who discriminates based on gender which usually involves hatred, distrust, and blind application of gender stereotypes. In feminist theory a female can only be a sexist if she disagrees with feminists. All males are automatically sexists, including manginas. Despite the piece entitled Schrodinger's Rapist otherwise qualifying as sexist literature due to its blind application of gender stereotypes and expression of distrust, it is not sexist because it was written by a female.
Sexualization: Any interaction with a woman instigated by a man. Used to justify hostility toward males wildly out of proportion to the alleged sexualization event.
"You aren't getting it." Fundifeminazi term loosely translated as "You aren't agreeing with me." used as a blanket dismissal of any argument against anything a feminist says.
Preface:
Dublin, Ireland, Center for Inquiry convention. Rebecca Watson in her perpetual need to hog the spotlight and be the center of attention uses this stage to explain yet again how men are constantly throwing themselves at her, and how terribly tiring it is. Something sparks between those vain, self centered ears of hers, and she decides to use this concept to garner even more attention by enlightening all the poorly educated fools about the scourge of sexism running rampant through the fields of skepticism.
Amazingly, almost all of the anything but poorly educated audience listens on with tolerance if not approval. Almost all, because an exceptionally intelligent Paula Kirby politely calls foul. Miss Kirby, who has been at this game a lot longer than Rebecca, has failed to see the sexism.
Certainly this can only mean one thing; Paula isn't as smart and sexy as Rebecca, who in one of many narcissistic attempts to elevate herself to celebrity status, has to mention Paula by name and explain how horribly, horribly wrong Paula is. Paula, Rebecca insists, is making an argument from ignorance and 'privilege'.
Rebecca decides to show Paula how wrong she is by posting a video explaining her own horrific sexist experience at the conference. The transcript below takes place about two and a half minutes into the video.
“...all of you except for the one man who didn’t really grasp, I think, what I was saying on the panel, because at the bar later that night, actually at four in the morning, we were at the hotel bar. Four a.m., I said I’d had enough, I was going to bed. So I walk to the elevator, and a man got on the elevator with me and said, 'Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?' Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don't do that. You know, I don't really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and--don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner..."
Oh, the horrific sexualization! He...he...he asked her to have coffee!
And this is sexualization? Seriously? Does Rebecca even know what the word means? Sexualization means to make sexual, endow with sex, attribute sex to someone or something, and clearly does not apply to anything in that situation. Perhaps she meant to say "sexually objectify". If so we can take a definition from a feminist blog to see how well the occurrence matches the definition. Sexual objectification is the viewing of people solely as de-personalised objects of desire instead of as individuals with complex personalities. This is done by speaking/thinking of women as only their bodies, either the whole body, or as fetishised body parts.
Can anyone please show me where in Elevator Guy's statement there was any indication of depersonalization? Anyone? Please? Can anyone even show me a request for sex? Anyone can suspect it was sexual solicitation, but suspicion is not evidence of intent. Here, let me create a statement that will demonstrate actual sexual objectification, as I feel the need to mansplain it to the people who 'don't get it.' Trust me, I know what I'm doing.
"Hey milkbags, how about the two of you come up to my room. I need some cream for my coffee, if ya know what I mean. Who am I kiddin', you don't have a clue what I mean! Just get those udders in here!"
And that is sexual objectification. Elevator Guy didn't do that, and only someone so blinded by dogma as to deny reality would think otherwise. So lets look at what he did do, and see if we might find some clues as to what was going on in that head of his.
1. He was likely, though nowhere have I heard certainly, present at Rebecca's lecture on sexism in the skeptic arena.
2. He was presumably present with Rebecca at the bar, though she fails to mention what his proximity was to her there.
3. He was again presumably present when she announced that she was tired and retiring to her room, and yet again we can only guess this.
4. He entered the elevator either immediately before her, alongside her, or immediately after her.
5. He framed his question politely and requested of her to not take it the wrong way.
6. He did not pursue the request further after she declined.
Now then, in order to make a solid inference, we would need a lot of information that Rebecca failed to provide. Did he actually hear her speech? If not he would have had no way of knowing that she was bothered by such behavior. Was he actually close enough to her in the bar to hear her mention that she was tired? If not we cannot assume that he knew this. So jumping to conclusions, as indeed many of the fundifeminazis did, is at best a poor example of skepticism.
We are missing other information as well, information that I mentioned at the very beginning...We have no idea what body language was being conveyed during this brief and by her own account harmless incident. Was he looming over her? Was he staring at her breasts? Did he attempt to corner her in the elevator, or make any move that would indicate that he was positioning himself to impede her passage? As Rebecca failed to convey any of this information, we simply do not know.
We also do not know what his country of origin is. If he Like Rebecca were from North America and only present in Dublin for the conference, he would likely still be functioning on the time he was accustomed to, so Dublin's 4 am would be his 7-11 pm, so he would not inherently associate the time as awkward or inappropriate. Nor do we know his state of inebriation, if any.
Despite this, nothing stops people commenting on Rebecca's video post from magically deducing that Elevator Guy a) heard her talking about this 'problem', b) knew her intentions of going to bed alone, c) insist that he was undoubtedly suggesting sex, and thereby twisting the event into a feminist issue. Rebecca herself fails to shed any light on the matter, instead fueling the fire by dropping some loaded language.
"...might make someone feel extraordinarily uncomfortable and even feel as though they are in danger."
Oh my Gawd! "find you interesting ....like to talk more....coffee?" makes you extraordinarily uncomfortable? It makes you feel in danger? Ohhh, but you were in an elevator! Granted it was an elevator in an upscale hotel in a modern city. Granted it probably had a security camera, an emergency exit button, and likely even an intercom. Granted that by the time he spit out what he had to say the ride would have been over and the door opening. But still, no one can tell you what to feel.
Not that this matters much, because thanks to the fuel, the fundifeminazis start crawling out from under their vagina shaped rocks, with one commentator calling Elevator Guy's behavior "predatory". Now the professionals are involved, and the real loaded language will start to fly. Others start talking about the 'sexism aspect of it", and later "culture of misogyny and rape", while another insists that Elevator Guy harmed Rebecca.
Lets see here: harm/härm/ Noun: Physical injury, esp. that which is deliberately inflicted.
Nope, he didn't harm her, not that mere facts will the zealot sway. The sparse voices of rationality that are heard there are relentlessly assaulted. Rebecca must be deliriously happy with herself by now.
Oh, but there are females, intelligent ones at that, who disagree with Rebecca, and this we shall see is an unforgivable sin.
Stef McGraw and Rose both called foul on Rebecca's over-dramatizing the situation, and so she turns her fury upon them both. While I feel for each of them, it seems to me as though Stef caught the worst of it. Rebecca discovered that Stef would be at a CFI student leadership conference. Rebecca freely admits this prior knowledge. And thus with premeditated malice, proceeds to publicly humiliate Stef in front of Stef's own peers by dropping her name in association with various and sundry misogynists. Rebecca smugly justifies her actions on the link provided, failing to mention certain facts; like the fact that Stef was in shock from the humiliation, and the fact that the only way Stef could wage a public rebuttal would be to interrupt a Q & A session which would make her feel like as much of a drama whore as Rebecca really is. Stef's rebuttal, for the few that will see it, can be found here. Naturally the fundifeminazi army and their mangina drones have attacked Stef even for defending herself, AFTER they attacked her for NOT defending herself!
This is nasty business, indeed, and it would be bad enough were it contained only in Rebecca's little empire of sycophancy. Instead it bleeds over into two respectable blogs. Biologist PZ Meyers cross posts Rebecca's rubbish, and even astronomer Phil Plait gets involved on his blog. Meyers despicably defends Rebecca's repulsive public attack, basically telling Stef that this is how the big dogs play, so suck it up.
Let me mansplain something to you, Mr Meyers, McGraw was not conveniently provided a platform in which to defend herself, nor was she aware that a video comment would be translated to a public venue. Unlike Rebecca, Stef has not sat at the feet of the big boys lapping at the crumbs of limelight, and may lack the public speaking skills that Rebecca has gained through the experience of drawing attention to herself by shaking her breasts while taking beer & fries communion. I would love to see the lady have a chance at Rebecca, though. And while they went at it, perhaps Rebecca, or even you or one of the other mangina puppets could actually cite some evidence for this supposed rape culture, or evidence of blatant sexism in the skeptic and atheist communities. Hell, can any of you even confirm that Elevator Guy isn't just a figment of Rebecca's self loving imagination? I mean, not saying that she is an attention whore or anything, but,...oh, wait, yes, I am saying that she is a vain, narcissistic, attention seeking trollop looking for any way possible to elevate herself to rockstar status.
To sum things up, Elevator Guy, assuming he actually exists, was possibly guilty of bad timing. As no sexualization, sexism, or misogyny has ever been demonstrated on his part, he is guilty of nothing else. Concerning allegations of his violating Rebecca's precious zone of comfort, no one other than Rebecca can say. I suspect his motives, still assuming that he exists, were less sinister than they were the actions of a bashful man who sought to avoid the slight shame of public rejection and sought damage control by approaching Rebecca in a less public area.
Rebecca is not guilty of making a mountain out of a mole hill as some few of my peers will claim. She is guilty of making a mountain out of nothing at all. There was no threat, only perceived possibility of threat. The elevator cable could have also snapped. She could have pulled a Bonham and aspirated on her own alcohol induced vomit. The bed in the room above hers could have came crashing through her ceiling killing her in bed. There are plenty of conceivable if less than likely threats to occupy the time of someone inclined to paranoia without the need of playing victim of ones imagination. Doubly her guilt lies in her disgusting attacks on women who bravely stood up to her, and through her passive-aggressive promotion of attacks by way of her fan base on every rational voice of dissent.
To be fair, Rebecca's mother is guilty of not exercising her female only special privilege of abortion some thirty odd years ago, thus sparing us all the putrid drama of Rebecca's sickening bid for attention and fame, and division of the skeptic and atheist communities via fundifeminazi infestation.
Meyers is guilty of aiding and abetting Rebecca's shameless self promotion, of falling headfirst into Feminist propaganda without utilizing the skeptical method of researching their claims, and of endorsing & defending a premeditated hostile public assault on a lady with no means of respectfully defending herself immediately.
The skeptic community in general, and CFI in specific, are guilty of encouraging such an irrational publicity whore to speak on their behalf to begin with, and, like PZ, of buying into the Feminist's distorted information, half truths, outright lies, and exceedingly ugly misandry.
So concludes this first installment. Hmmm? Yes, installment. What, you thought we were done? Oh, baby, we've only scratched the tip of the iceberg. The real fun has yet to begin!
No comments:
Post a Comment