About Me

My photo
Brutal Antipathy is a pseudonym for a blogger and forum debate enthusiast whose views often rest well outside of social baseline. A self confirmed atheist, misanthropist, and sadist, his commentary ranges from parched textbook facts to satire and sarcasm. He is a proponent of free speech and individual liberty even when these are taken to excess. His political views shift between lower case libertarian and enlightened despotism depending on the level of contempt he is feeling for his fellow humans at any given moment. His reading interests include history, general science, archaeology, comparative religion, psychology, & sociology. Other interests and hobbies include practicing various crafts, torturing his slave, blogging, playing with his dogs, collecting antiques, role playing & tactical simulation games, renaissance fairs, and cheerfully making other people miserable by holding up a mirror of their shortcomings and repeatedly bashing them in the face with it. L is the owned slave of BA. She basically has the same interests and views as her owner except in music.

Friday, July 22, 2011

Broken Clock part 2: Enter the Dragon

About this time there came a man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. Wait, no, that is a Christian apologists insertion into Josephus' Antiquities in a childish effort to give Jesus some historical credence. So lets try again.

In the midst of the brewing chaos strode a man. Larger than life yet gentle of speech. A powerful, wise man and leader of many. He wields sarcasm with the same deadly skill that a master assassin wields a poisoned blade. He is gracious, intelligent, eloquent. He is a god slayer. A man with pointed wit and keen insight.

What? Me? Oh!....Oh, no! I'm flattered, really, but this isn't about me. No, even I pale in comparison to this man. The man of the hour is Richard "The Dragon" Dawkins. Ah, but it is not quite time for him to take the stage, because we must first understand the stage upon which he steps.

With PZ Guynoid  Meyers posting his Fempologitic defense of Rebecca's unprofessional and uncivil assault on Stef and Rose on his science blog, the feminists begin immediately coming out of the woodwork in his comments section. As an example of the feminist dogma machine, take a look at the response to a question posted early on.

Greg Laden: Do you name the names to make people feel bad or to make the argument data-based rather than straw-man based? (Or both?)
Iris: Both. And in addition, to make other people aware that such behavior is unwelcome and that there may be consequences for it, beyond a woman feeling creeped out and keeping silent about it. 
 Wait a minute, did I read that correctly? A fundifeminazi admits that Rebecca's naming names is partially designed to make the people feel bad, and that the behavior of women objecting to Rebecca is unwelcome? Who is it that is trying to silence the voice of women here again?

As bad as this is, the truly disturbing part of this comment is that PZ Meyers, a respected scientist and skeptic, allows this to stand unchallenged. This tells me that Meyers endorses this, as his silence on the matter on his own blog stinks of agreement.

Lets see how well reasoned and substantial some of the other comments from the fundifeminazi army are now that they have found a place to preach.

nerahla: It's not odd Mr. Myers, when you consider misogyny to be absolutely rampant in our society still. It's all thanks to religion really (even pre-monotheistic ones) - but boy is that another post 8) 

I'm not surprised or taken aback with shock when a woman is treated as less than equal by a man. It's just one of those things that we deal with on a daily basis, so pervasive, many of us simply ignore/accept it. 

Where was Rebecca treated as less than equal by Elevator Guy? Really, where? The man uttered a couple of sentences which expressed that he found some redeeming quality in her other than her body, and you are bitching about it?

Moving on;

hillaryrettig: Thanks for supporting her PZ. One thing about sexual harassers is that they are often VERY good at maintaining ambiguity or otherwise evading responsibility. So they'll say something to you, but only when alone or in a very low voice so you're not 100% sure you heard it. Or they'll grope you, but in a crowded subway car so you can't tell exactly who's doing it. Or they'll say something provocative or nasty, then claim it was a joke...
Wham! Pow! Out of the freaking blue! Now EG is a 'sexual harasser'. Now asking someone for coffee is the equivalent of groping them. Gotta love the leaps of logic.

Schrödinger's Rapist is dropped for the first time on this blog in post #21

moochava: ...Does making someone uncomfortable require drunk, aggressive, sexual assault? Do you believe racism consists solely in dragging black people behind a truck? 

Drunk, aggressive, sexual assault? Where was it established that EG was drunk? And since he asked nicely and dropped the issue when rejected, how was he aggressive? And since there was no assault, sexual or otherwise, exactly how far up their asses do fundifeminazis have their heads in order to see it from this perspective?

Not to mention that comparing Rebecca being asked to have coffee to racism is an insult to anyone who has ever suffered from the effects of racism.

And here is a classic one in response to some legitimate arguments.

Iris: Deus:
I keep seeing that excuse brought up, that she "Had no Escape", are all men rapists now? Assumed to be one unless proven otherwise?
"Excuse?" Not all men are assumed rapists, and not all men are assumed not-rapists. Rebecca's message was simple: Following me, a single woman, into a hotel elevator, in a foreign country, at 4:00am and hitting on me makes me incredibly uncomfortable and creeps me out.
If you take from it that now all men are assumed rapists, that's your problem. And it's a doozy.
Try some light reading.
Are we that scared of other people that "What means of escape do I have?" is a thought that goes through peoples minds?
Yes. Especially rape and sexual assault victims. Of which there are many.
And to everyone saying Rebecca was a dick about this: Good.
Now that the Privileged Penis Brigades have shown up, I think I'll take my leave. (emphasis mine)

Accordingly, 'Try some light reading' is, once again, you guessed it, Schrödinger's Rapist. As I mentioned in another blog entry, it and other responses become blanket arguments to shut down all debate.

wasabiiiiiii: The core of the argument seems to be that a man is automatically in a power position when propositioning a women....

Really? Any evidence for this, or is it just another feminist meme?

Romeo VitelliIt's perhaps interesting that the same men who seem so outraged over women overreacting to their come-ons are the same ones who would freak out if a man ever propositioned them. You have to wonder where they stand on the "gay panic" defense. 

This mangina's remark was another of those that swept in from out of the blue. It now seems that along with being privileged misogynists, anyone disagreeing with the fundifeminazi agenda is also a homophobe.  Fascinating to learn this, as I have been hit on by men.  My response has always been to smile and tell them that I am flattered, but that I am straight. But please, please someone explain to me what insane distortion of logic leads one to deduce that anyone disagreeing with Rebecca is homophobic. And GynoMeyers lets this absurdity stand as well.

But finally Mangineyers decides to weight in. We can certainly expect some balance and fairness now.

I hear too much talk about a "power imbalance". There isn't one. Being a speaker at a conference does not suddenly grant you grand dictatorial powers over the audience. The speaker is put into a vulnerable position, where her opinions are being weighed. McGraw's complaint is that she has been placed in the same vulnerable position as the speaker, where now her ideas are exposed to the same criticism.
The speaker does have a temporary place of influence, where she can bring matters to the audience's attention. Watson did McGraw a favor -- her opinions were given greater attention than if Watson had cravenly concealed her identity.
This is the converse of Ken Ham's habit of sneering at me while refusing to name me or link to me. Do you think he's showing sensitivity and respect by refraining from confronting me?

Uh huh! Lets see, Rebecca has the lectern and is supposed to be talking about religion oppressing women. Instead, she targets McGraw and, while giving her opinions greater attention, lumps her in with actual (or possibly imagined) misogynists. Without McGraw resorting to the uncivil tactic of disrupting the Q & A, she has no recourse other than to suffer public humiliation. Stef has made it fairly clear that she is willing to back up her opinion. The problem is that she had no equal footing in which to do so when Rebecca attacked her. And you endorse this conniving, ego-maniacal, narcissistic trollop? And you say Rebecca did MGraw a favor? You fucking cunt! We need someone to put assholes like you and Watson in your place. We need someone with real insight.

Drum roll, please.

Richard Dawkins: Dear Muslima

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so . . .
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

Oh hell yeah! That's what I'm talkin' about!

Surprisingly few criticisms of Dawkins' comments follow for the next few comments, probably because nobody could believe that Richard Fucking Dawkins had decided to bless the blog of his vastly inferior peer, but there were still a few. One actually has some importance.

Brother Ogvorbis, Fully Defenestrated Emperor of Fire and Steam: Richard Dawkins: Did you just make the argument that, since worse things are happening somewhere else, we have no right to try to fix things closer to home?...

To which da Man Dawkins replies;

No I wasn't making that argument. Here's the argument I was making. The man in the elevator didn't physically touch her, didn't attempt to bar her way out of the elevator, didn't even use foul language at her. He spoke some words to her. Just words. She no doubt replied with words. That was that. Words. Only words, and apparently quite polite words at that.

If she felt his behaviour was creepy, that was her privilege, just as it was the Catholics' privilege to feel offended and hurt when PZ nailed the cracker. PZ didn't physically strike any Catholics. All he did was nail a wafer, and he was absolutely right to do so because the heightened value of the wafer was a fantasy in the minds of the offended Catholics. Similarly, Rebecca's feeling that the man's proposition was 'creepy' was her own interpretation of his behaviour, presumably not his. She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum. But he does me no physical damage and I simply grin and bear it until either I or he gets out of the elevator. It would be different if he physically attacked me.

Muslim women suffer physically from misogyny, their lives are substantially damaged by religiously inspired misogyny. Not just words, real deeds, painful, physical deeds, physical privations, legally sanctioned demeanings. The equivalent would be if PZ had nailed not a cracker but a Catholic. Then they'd have had good reason to complain.


Thank you, sir, for putting this in the perspective it needed to be placed in. Rebecca has taken nothing and made it into a mountain. She did not suffer less abuse than do Muslim women, she suffered no abuse. None whatsoever. If she wants to be offended by EG's actions, fine. That is not really the point here. The point is that to a small degree she, and to a much greater degree the fundifeminazi army, have turned an absolute non issue into a huge debacle which seriously detracts from real issues that really do need to be addressed.

Dawkins is discounting Rebeca's feelings, because people here and elsewhere have been equating Rebecca's speculations to actual atrocious events.

We can rest assured that his clarification is going to generate some response.

Antiochus Epiphanes: RD: Women everywhere suffer physically from mysogyny. This is why a woman alone in an elevator at 4am with a stranger is justified in feeling threatened. 

And what are you complaining about? The response to the propositioner was only words, right? Not real deeds, physical privations, or legally sanctioned demeanings.

I don't think anyone is saying that she had no right to feel threatened. The criticism comes from the gross overreaction she generated with it.

And again, the complaint is the incredibly disproportionate amount of  attention that is being given to the situation that has created an imaginary problem of sexism running rampant within the skeptical community. We have real issues to concern ourselves with.

'Tis Himself, Designated Economist: Shorter Richard Dawkins #104 
Since Rebecca wasn't actually raped she has nothing to complain about. And gum chewing is as bad as being propositioned by a stranger.
Wasn't even remotely close to being raped, did not have anything to complain about, and gum chewing is as bad as being propositioned by a stranger. Hey, you're 'getting it'! 

Algernon, The Ugly Other: If she wasn't raped she should shut the fuck up and enjoy being harassed by some freak in an elevator, and if she did get raped she should have known she would have been or better yet... enjoyed it. I mean, it's just sex. 

Yeah, fuck that shit. And fuck the people who encourage that kind of climate. All of you. You suck. Really. You make the world suck. 

The important thing is that we find a way to blame women for stupid shit men do, right? 

I HAVE to live in fear of men. I don't get a choice because the second I trust one (even a little) and get assaulted again I will be blamed again for it.

No, I live in fear. The least you could do is stop denying that like a spoiled brat.

I really don't care how famous you are. If that's what you like in the world then you suck.

My oh my, what a well reasoned, rational response that was! What can I possibly say to counter that? Victim much?

Walton: ...The right response is not to make up excuses and accuse everyone of "overreacting". That's the very definition of obnoxious, entitled behaviour....

I really need a new dictionary, because I can't find that definition in mine. Oh well, fundifeminazis make up so much stuff as it is that I can't begrudge one from making up definitions too.

Ohh, look what I did find in the dictionary! overreact: verb get things out of proportion, go over the top (Brit. informal), blow things out of all proportion, make a mountain out of a molehill, get upset over nothing, react disproportionately.

Or, as one unbrainwashed skeptic put it

flatlander: Apparently, in that elevator, for the man involved, "No!" meant "No!" That seems an acceptable standard of conduct to me. 

The woman over-reacted. 

Nice to see that the voice of reason has not been completely silenced on GynoMeyers' blog. 

jack lecou: Whoa. Dick Dawkins showing off some male privilege like a motherfucker.

Still waiting to hear how expressing the obvious is male privilege. 

Algernon, The Ugly Other: When's the last time you were afraid a man was going to shove bubble gum up your ass, Richard?

Keeping it rational as always, isn't she?

Amphigorey" I am also having trouble believing that whoever posted #75 isn't Fake Richard Dawkins. The argument he's making is incredibly stupid, not to mention clumsy, and it reads like a troll trying to get a rise out of atheists. He's saying that following a woman into an elevator late at night, as long as you only use words and no physical force, isn't creepy behavior. That's so obviously wrong that it hardly needs stating - although going by how many people apparently disbelieve it, it apparently DOES need stating. I am appalled. 

If it is actually Richard Dawkins, then he needs to reread the bit in God Delusion where he thanks the feminists for raising our consciousness. 

Incredibly stupid? Clumsy?  These are such great refutations! And as for it being "so obviously wrong that it hardly needs stating" is strange. I suppose that it hardly needs saying that Dawkins nowhere said that. 

HappiestSadist: (in response to another, more rational poster) The sexism is partly that he didn't stop to think "Hmm, maybe in this elevator at 4am is the time to proposition her?" because he doesn't have to consider these things. And partly, and relatedly, that after hearing a talk about not objectifying and automatically sexualizing women, he avoids actual, wanted social interaction, and decides that his dick needs attending to right now.

Inappropriate for reasons unknown = sexism, moron? And yet again someone jumps to the conclusion that EG heard Rebecca's inane lecture on a 'problem' in the skeptic world that seems to exist in her head.

Screechy_Monkey: (in response to the same more rational poster) I think sexism comes into it because that kind of inappropriate behavior usually reflects an indifference, if not outright hostility, to women's concerns....

Have any of these idiots ever even looked up the definition of sexism? 

Walton: (in response to someone with a brain) I think the sexism comes mainly in the reactions to it; the claims that she was "overreacting" to an innocuous overture, etc. Those reactions betray a stunning level of male privilege, and unawareness of women's experiences. 

Stating an opinion that someone is overreacting to something is a male privilege?  Even when women like Rose and Stef were expressing that same opinion? So now if a man voices an opinion on any fundifeminazi issue that disagrees, that man is sexist and exercising male privilege. Got it, thanks.And as someone else later points out, how does privilege equal sexism?

And on it goes, over a thousand comments. Several times someone calls GynoMeyers out on the Stef incident. Each time the douche fails to respond. He does however close the original blog post, creating another which he allows his fellow fundifeminazis to insult, mock, and belittle the few rational people tenacious enough to try and bitch slap reason into them.

This was my first up close taste of feminism, and it left a sour taste in my mouth. Suddenly that mental junk I had been tossing out for years held a bit of nostalgic appeal. What I didn't know at the time, and what I wouldn't have believed if told, was that GynoMeyers' fundifeminazis were the rational feminists compared to the legions I would later encounter on other blogs while trying to piece everything together.

But that was in the future, and the present was time for bed. I brushed my teeth and riffled through the utility drawer for a ponytail holder where I spied an old broken watch. I picked it up and saw that it had stopped at 6:20.

Hmmm, just a couple more hours and it will have the correct time.


  1. The whole business is disgusting and soured me on not just womens issues, but the whole bullshit skeptic community thing. The fact that Watson managed to shove her stubby little fingers up high enough to massage the prostates of PZ and Phil Plait amazes me. At least we know who the manginas are.

  2. Exactly, Chris. That PZ and Phil tripped over their feet in jumping to defend Feminism without giving Feminist claims and statistics even a cursory skeptical examination is discouraging to say the least. If the new face of skepticism is to not hold anything on the PC radar up to scrutiny, I want nothing to do with it.