Rebecca Watson attempts to smear Justin Vacula

Skeptic Ink Network blogger Justin Vacula is going to the Women in Secularism 2 conference! For some reason (and I’d love to know why) many people are not happy about this, and there is currently a smear campaign against him coming from PZ Myers and Ophelia Benson. Recently, Rebecca Watson has joined in with this tweet:

Justin Vacula jokes about violence against women in response to women's concerns about him harassing them at event http://t.co/fR1YcqCTex—
Rebecca Watson (@rebeccawatson) April 30, 2013

Just look at the text of Rebecca’s tweet, then compare it to what the picture is of.

Justin Vacula jokes about violence against women in response to women’s concerns about him harassing them at event

How, in the name of skepticism, does the picture (which I’m going to show below) suggest that Justin Vacula is joking about violence against women? All Justin does is point out that the image has made it onto Ophelia Benson’s blog, and that this is part of Ophelia’s “monitoring” of him. There is no joking from Justin at all!

I hope that people will look at the evidence and see that it does not imply that Justin Vacula thinks that violence against women is funny. Rebecca Watson and others who try to smear Justin just look very, very desperate and their petty minded groupthink has to stop!

Three flavors of patriarchy

Patriarchy: noun, A social system in which the father is the head of the family and men have authority over women and children.

The word “patriarchy” gets a lot of use in feminist circles, but the way the word is used is far more complicated that the simple dictionary definition above. In this post, I will take a look at three flavors of patriarchy: “a patriarchy”, “patriarchy” and “the patriarchy”. Although these three terms look identical, there are subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) differences that I would like to make clear!

A Patriarchy

Will we see an “Empress of Japan”? No, because it’s a patriarchy!

I define “a patriarchy” as any social system where the power of males over females is enshrined in law. This work at all levels. For example, if the father of the family has more power than the mother, and this is in the society’s laws, then that society could be called a patriarchy. If the head of state always has to be a man, for example in Japan, then again, that country can be called a patriarchy.

 

Patriarchy

Patriarchy is a much more general term, applying to social norms rather than anything official. For example, the idea of a “nuclear family” with the man at the head of the house still persists in western culture. The man is expected to get a job and provide for the family, whereas the woman is expected to stay home and look after the children. I personally am against “patriarchy” in this sense, as any entrenched social norms are very bad for people who they don’t apply to. There are countless people in this situation, including families where the woman goes out to work and the man stays behind as a “house husband”. Traditional patriarchal values say that this is wrong, whereas enlightened society says that this is just fine! In fact, patriarchal values are so ingrained that I’ve just called them “traditional”. :/

Anyway, this concept of “patriarchy” is very much present in western society and is rightly stood up to. However the same cannot be said for…

The Patriarchy

The problem with making “the patriarchy” into a definite article is that it implies that “the patriarchy” is something solid, something that can be found and smashed (or “fucked”, depending on how rude you are!). The problem with this, is that the concept of “the patriarchy” is totally unfalsifiable, and therefore goes against scientific (and therefore skeptical) thinking. If “the patriarchy” exists then where is it? Who runs it? Who needs to be fucked?

The concept of “the patriarchy” is comparable to “the Illuminati”, the shadowy elite who are supposed to be running the world. It’s a conspiratorial way of thinking that can get people angry without having anything to blame their anger on. It can also give people something to blame instead of putting responsibility on themselves. Didn’t get that promotion at the job? You are a woman, so it can’t be that you weren’t as good as the other candidates, it must be because of the patriarchy!

I know others will not agree, but I also see parallels between “the patriarchy” and George Bush’s “War on Terrorism”. In both cases, you have an invisible enemy that can’t be defeated. It is therefore a battle that cannot be won, so a war against it will be perpetual. This means that there will always be something to protest against, as the aims of these protests cannot be realized. In other words, you will always have an enemy to fight if the enemy doesn’t exist!

Conclusions

I think that people need to be clear with their definitions, certainly when it comes to patriarchy. People also need to be good skeptics and constantly analyze their beliefs, and hopefully I’ve convinced a few people that fighting “the patriarchy” is not the right way to go about things, we should instead look to challenge patriarchal values.

However, it should be said that there is no “one size fits all” solution to social conventions. I’m sure some people are fine with the idea of a “patriarchal” family, and they shouldn’t be criticized for buying into it. I say live and let live!

Where I “harass” Barack Obama and Ophelia Benson

There is still a lot of talk in the skeptic community about “harassment”, and what constitutes it. Ophelia Benson claims that people photoshopping her constitutes harassment. In this post, I will show how ridiculous that idea is!

Here is a goat. Lets call him Clive:

Now, lets say for sake of argument that I want to mock Barack Obama. I could do that by putting his head on Clive and putting a crude message on the picture:

Now, according to Ophelia Benson, photoshopping constitutes harassment, so does the above image harass Barack Obama? I don’t think so! Let’s apply the same thing to a picture of Ophelia:

Now, who would consider either of the above pictures to be “harassing” of Barack Obama or Ophelia Benson? Only the hypersensitive or the histrionic I guess!

BBC says false rape allegations are a thing, feminist heads explode

Once again Twitter has erupted with rage! This time it’s been caused by this article on the BBC:

False rape claims ‘devastating’ say wrongly accused

The article, published on the BBC Newsbeat website, states that over 17 months, 35 people were charged with crimes relating to false rape allegations. It also features a story from a guy who was falsely accused of rape, and how badly it affected his life. The article concludes with the number for Rape Crisis.

Here is a short selection of outrage:

Shocked by @bbcnewsbeat's coverage of CPS report on treatment of rape allegations Misshapen report/misses the point bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/21016… …—
Maeve McClenaghan (@MaeveMCC) March 13, 2013

False Rape Reporting: Women's Groups Urge Complaints Over 'Appalling' BBC Newsbeat story: huff.to/ZlWUo0—
Naomi Mc (@NaomiMc) March 13, 2013

Baffling and infuriating that @BBCNewsbeat reports DPP's findings that false rape allegations are rare like this bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/21016…—
Becca Reilly-Cooper (@boodleoops) March 13, 2013

Irresponsible journalism – story is on how rare these cases are. @BBC Newsbeat – False rape claims 'devastating'- bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/21016…—
marie nixon (@mariemarie0) March 13, 2013

So what is wrong with the article? According to the mass of feminists on Twitter, it has missed the point of a recent report on rape statistics. UK left wing newspaper The Guardian takes a different approach. They state that the number of false rape allegations are very low, and that police should not dismiss people when they report rape.

The contrast between the two articles is huge, but surely both are correct! Yes, the rate of false allegations is very low, and rape victims should not be deterred from reporting crimes committed against them. However, as with all serious crimes, false rape allegations are very damaging, and should be taken seriously.

So, I come to a big beef I have with the skepchick/freethought blogs people: they have a term called “hyperskepticism”. They think that if someone reports being raped, then they should immediately be believed, and that questioning their claims is “hyperskepticism”. However, this would only make sense if people never lied about being raped. As you can see, the report in the Guardian and the BBC says that false rape allegations do happen!

It is a question of basic, simple justice. Everyone has the right to a fair trial, there needs to be a body of evidence in order to put someone on trial, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. What you cannot do, is allow someone to point an accusatory finger at someone else, wait for them to say “he raped me” and then throw the accused in jail. All I am calling for is respect for legal process!

Rape happens. False allegations of rape also happen. If we want to live in a better world, both need to stop.

PS I’m not putting a “trigger warning” at the start of my posts. If it’s got “rape” in the title then it’s probably about rape!

Timeline of Rebecca Watson, Ed Clint, Evolutionary Psychology and Rape

Evo Psych

I saw someone on Twitter (sorry, I can’t remember who you are!) asking for a timeline on the recent controversy involving Rebecca Watson’s evolutionary psychology talk, Ed Clint’s analysis of it and Rebecca Watson subsequently calling him a rapist. Well, I thought I’d make one! When all the facts are present it really makes Rebecca Watson look like a manipulator who can’t take criticism.

 

Weekend of November 18th 2012

Rebecca Watson, blogger and podcast sidekick, delivers a talk on evolutionary psychology (“How Girls Learned to Shop”) at the Sketicon 5 conference. If you can stomach her smarminess, you can watch it here.

December 1st 2012

Ed Clint, an evolutionary psychlogist who writes on the Skeptic Ink network, writes a very long rebuttal of Rebecca’s talk, going so far as to call it science denialism:

http://www.skepticink.com/incredulous/2012/12/01/science-denialism-at-a-skeptic-conference/

December 3rd 2012

Stephanie Zvan, a blogger at Freethought Blogs, writes in defence of Rebecca, telling us all what she was really talking about:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/12/03/science-denialism-the-role-of-criticism/

Chris Hallquist writes a review of Rebecca’s talk and addresses Zvan’s article:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/12/rebecca-watsons-awful-skepticon-5-talk-on-evolutionary-psychology/

Freethought Blogs kingpin PZ Myers then chips in with his usual series or strawmen and misrepresentations, completely failng to address Ed Clint’s critque.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/03/oh-gob-evo-psych-again/

December 18th 2012

Havng decided to ignore Ed Clint’s critique of her evolutionary psychology talk, Rebecca Watson decides to start blogging again by addressing some responses to a vague tweet she made:

http://skepchick.org/2012/12/twitter-users-sad-to-hear-they-may-be-rapists/

The tweet in question was this:

If you have sex w/ someone who is drunk, they are unable to consent & that is rape.—
Rebecca the Undead (@rebeccawatson) December 17, 2012

Notice how vague this is. When Rebecca says “drunk”, it is very unclear how drunk she means. Does she mean feeling tipsy after a few beers, or unconcious on the bathroom floor? This was addressed by Myk Dowling:

@rebeccawatson That's a very binary statement for an undefined condition. At what BAC% is consent impossible? Should we breathalyse before?—
Myk Dowling (@MykDowling) December 17, 2012

Ed Clint decides to address Rebecca Watson’s ambiguous tweet on his Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/ed.clint/posts/400491556694580

Rebecca decides to include this in her Skepchick post, even going so far as to include a comment which he later deleted.

So there you are. Rebecca Watson would rather label Ed Clint a rapist than address his criticism of her Skepticon talk. How very academic!

Ophelia Benson knows what Harriet Hall was thinking

Yesterday I blogged about Rebecca Watson’s petulant reply to Harriet Hall over the t shirt she wore at the last TAM. Since then, Dr Hall has further clarified her position, and Ophelia Benson has chimed in with a blog post in her usual style. Ophelia has once again shown that she has no tact or class.

Ophelia entitles the post “Explanation provided by Dunning and Kruger”.  No doubt Ophelia is insinuating that Dr Hall is experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect, where incompetent people over-estimate their own abilities. More on that later!

Here is Ophelia’s opening salvo against Dr Hall:

She’s astonishingly unwilling or unable to admit even that her intentions were not necessarily self-evident, let alone that she simply went out of her way to make a hostile public statement about some people who had already been on the receiving end of a lot of hostile public statements.

Does anyone else notice a problem with this way of thinking? Ophelia has decided what Dr Hall’s intentions were, and is chiding Dr Hall for not admitting them! Can someone please tell Ophelia that she doesn’t get to decide what other people’s intentions were?

There then follows a bit of back and forth about why Rebecca Watson decided not to go to TAM, harassment policies, and a bit of shitting on DJ Grothe. If you want to read the story of why Rebecca Watson chose to boycott TAM you can do so here. It’s also worth noting that Ophelia Benson was so hysterical that she decided not to go to TAM because she thought she would be shot. No joke.

Ophelia closes the article (which is quite long by her standards) by once again telling Dr Hall what she was thinking. She also makes a poor attempt to misrepresent Dr Hall. It’s poor, judgmental, sloppy writing Ophelia!

I promised a little more on the Dunning-Kruger effect. It’s a cognitive bias where unskilled people suffer from a superiority complex, overestimating their own abilities. Does that sound familiar Ophelia?

Whilst I’m on the subject, I’d like to address something that has been on my mind for quite awhile. Why do people think Ophelia Benson is a good writer? According to her profile, Ophelia Benson is the co-author of The Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense, Why Truth Matters, and Does God Hate Women. All of these books are co-authored by a guy called Jeremy Stangroom. Jeremy has a PhD, has written many books and runs philosophyexperiments.com. From what I can work out, Ophelia and Jeremy currently aren’t talking to each other. There hasn’t been talk of a new book by Ophelia Benson recently, whereas Jeremy Stangroom is still very active as an author. Based on the low standard of writing on Ophelia Benson’s blog, my conclusion is that Jeremy Stangroom is in the fact the major contributor to the books that they have co-authored, and that Ophelia’s contributions are fairly minimal. Of course, I’m willing to be proved wrong, but I feel I need to put it out there that Ophelia Benson is just a poor writer who has hitched a ride on a better writers back. Perhaps I (and everyone else) should stop giving her attention? Just a thought!

Rebecca Watson shows Harriet Hall she is an arrogant, nasty piece of work

Stand by for the latest in the ongoing mess that is the drama in the skeptic movement! First, a little context: you may remember that a few months ago there was a big brouhaha regarding harassment policies at skeptic conferences, in particular the granddaddy of them all, The Amaz!ng Meeting (TAM). After reading something from DJ Grothe that she didn’t like, Rebecca Watson decided to boycott TAM, and the rumor went around the “skeptifem” clique that TAM wasn’t safe for women. In response to this, Dr Harriet Hall (the SkepDoc) turned up at TAM wearing a t shirt proclaiming that she felt safe and welcome at TAM (pics courtesy of the wonderful Sara Mayhew’s blog).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Naturally, Dr Hall’s t shirt drew a barrage of snidy sniping from the SkepChicks, and Surly Amy gave it as a reason why she left the conference early.

That’s the history, now on to the present day! Dr Hall has decided to write a post defending herself against the privilege police, and the “fearless leader” of the Skepchicks, one Rebecca Watson, has decided to chime in with a nasty, snarky, sarcastic comment. Check it out:

Click for full size

Fortunately, another commenter by the name of Captain Janeway was on hand to address Rebecca’s childish petulance, but I’d like to take this opportunity to add my two cents.

This comment by Rebecca Watson shows why she is so intensely disliked by many skeptics. It’s not because she is a woman, but because she is arrogant, sarcastic and precious.

Firstly, the “queer” thing. Yes, it’s true that some people have re-appropriated the term and some like to add it to the LGBT acronym to make it LGBTQ. However, some haven’t and still see it as an offensive term. “Will” falls into the former category, and therefore Rebecca raises him above Dr Hall. Pure arrogance there!

You didn’t mention me as a person included amongst your feminist critics, but I suspect many people reading this will assume I’m in there somewhere

Rebecca assumes it’s about her. Arrogant and egotistical!

After coming up with a flawed analogy where she suggests that Dr Hall would be offended by a t shirt saying “I am not a SkepDoc” Rebecca then repeats the biggest unsubstantiated myth in the skeptic movement:

Your hurt feelings would be completely understandable, especially if he did this following a year in which you received a nonstop avalanche of insults, slurs, rape threats, and death threats from skeptics.

For certain non-skeptics, the idea that Rebecca gets rape and death threats from skeptics has been repeated so much that it has been accepted as true. Well, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I know people ask this all the time, but where is Rebecca’s evidence that these unknown “threats” she faces are coming from skeptics and not Internet trolls who have read her Encyclopedia Dramatica page? Moving on…

I came to the realization that while a week prior I held an immense amount of respect for you, I suddenly had lost that respect so completely that I had no interest in getting it back.

Once again, it’s all about Rebecca Watson. Rebecca will never think that there might be something wrong with the way she thinks, there must be something wrong with the person that has done her wrong. Rebecca finishes with her trademark snark and petulance:

So, having now spent ten precious minutes on the subject, it’s once again time for me to move on to more interesting things.

Typical asshole behavior: insinuate that their precious time has been wasted. And what are these “interesting things” Rebecca? Skepchick hasn’t been interesting for a long time, and most of Rebecca’s tweets are about video games. Rebecca Watson has a vastly over-inflated sense of self worth, and close to zero humility. The best scientists have the ability to consider the views of others, respectfully disagree, apologize where necessary, and contribute to an environment where everybody learns. Rebecca Watson is so far away from this that she might as well be on another planet. Her opinion is always correct, any disagreement is “harassment”, and she never apologizes for anything. She is toxic to the skeptic movement.

Rant over!