Of course Barbara lied. She’s a R Becca Watson supporter.

Wow. You clearly did not read the post that you have commented on at all, nor do you read this blog or know me at all. I am probably Rebecca’s most outspoken critic, at least within the community.

Watson’s word is worth nothing. At the very conference she claims this incident happened at, she lied in her presentation about what had been said by another female skeptic, Paula Kirby, who had said she personally did not have a problem with sexism, Rebecca then falsely claimed Kirby claimed there was no sexism in skepticism. And Rebecca’s latest video blog is just one giant misrepresentation of the major criticsms against her, and filled with crassly worded insults to boot. And her story has changed as well. Now she’s claiming she was cornered in the elevator, which is strange to not have mentioned up front. also, why would a man threateningly corner a women in an elevator only to politely accept her refusal?

Watson and her ilk crave attention, but don’t have the looks or any actual skills or talent to earn it. So they fabricate a controversy and dramatze about it so they can at least get attention through pity.

This is a fabricated controversy all so that women like this can whine, “everyone pay attention to me!”

Again, it’s a free internet. If you want to write a whole freaking book about what you think I did or said that was wrong, go ahead. Just do it somewhere else, M’kay?

Please quote where I said YOU said that.

Admin said: “I did not say “All young women are ignorant and all experienced women are wise.” I did make statements suggesting that Stef demonstrated a shallow understanding of the issues. I stand by that. I speculated as to why her understanding was shallow by considering her age and lack of experience”

Actually, you applied it to more than just Steph….your words: “I am more interested in the incredible shallowness of the discussion, the lack of empathy demonstrated by McGraw and those who ‘sided’ with her on the issue…..Most importantly, how willing they are to listen to the views of those with more knowledge and experience than they have themselves.”

Admin said: ” Few have argued that his intention was not clear (sex) because it is pretty clear. Rebecca simply asked men who do not know her personally not to sexualize her the way that EG clearly did.”

What? We’re mind readers now? No one knows what that guy’s intentions were, and no…neither do you. So by your logic, because it’s okay to assume this guy meant something other than what he said, then it’s okay for a guy to assume a woman means something other than “no” when she says “no”, right? Otherwise, you’re applying a double standard. And since when does a guy telling you exactly what you ask for mean he’s ‘sexualizing’ you? She said she wanted to be treated like a “thinking human being, first”. What part of “I find you interesting. Would you like to come up for coffee and conversation?” does NOT imply the guy sees you as a thinking human being? He didn’t say he wanted to jump her bones. He didn’t ask for sex. He said he found here interesting and offered the opportunity for more conversation. Some people ACTUALLY mean what they say. Not everyone talks behind cryptic messages. Where this guy was from, it may not have been outside of social norms for him to extend the invitation. And as some other bloggers pointed out, some people interact that way and think nothing of it. One culture’s norm is another’s taboo. It’s not very wise to go into another country, as RW did, and expect someone to adjust themselves to your social norms, especially when they are not infringing your rights. It’s even less wise to tell a gender what they should or shouldn’t do when it comes to interaction between other people, as RW did. If it made her feel uncomfortable, then that’s how she felt. She has that right. But this isn’t simply about how RW felt. This has to do with people painting this guy, someone none of them know anything about, as some “creepy” individual based on one person’s feelings of insecurity during the situation. Just because she’s entitled to feel the way she did, doesn’t make her assessment of the guy accurate. Nor does it give her the right to dictate to other men what they can or can’t do, in a blanket statement, as she did, especially when it’s implied they surrender basic freedom of speech or expression. That was Steph’s point. No one has a protected right to never feel uncomfortable. If we did, we’d all be serving prison time at one point or another.

As far as the SC person, he/she pointing out where you contradicted yourself, and yes….you did…is not being abusive. He/she said you lied. Well, when you post one thing then later say you didn’t say it….what do you call it? Yes, I have the whole exchange sitting in my email inbox from alerts that came across. You claim he/she took you out of context…..like RW did Steph by quoting only part of her entry and lumping her in with people threatening RW with rape and suggesting that she supported something she didn’t, like…misogyny? Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of females for no other reason than they are females. There’s no evidence to suggest Steph falls in that category or supports it. Not even close.

In a nutshell, nothing came of the situation. The guy didn’t push the issue. Therefore, we are left with no evidence that this guy meant anything other than what he said, taking it at face value. To demand that we want what we say to be taken at face value, such as, when we say “no” then to turn around and imply this guy meant something other than what he said, is a double standard. If women want to stop the gender double standards, that feminists have often complained about, they have to stop applying them, as well. That pendulum swings both ways. With equal rights comes equal responsibility and equal accountability, too.

S.C., if you want to rant on repeatedly and call me names, do so on your own blog.

Understanding is about knowledge, not respect for differing opinions. Not all “points of view” are equally valid.

And, once again, whether EG’s behavior stems from ignorance, Asperger’s, or any other excuse is not relevant because it isn’t about EG.

Sexism is the set of subtle thought processes that keep women from equal access to resources for the same effort.

You are taking my words out of context and assuming quite a bit about what I do and do not respect, assume, or think. I called what EG did objectification, which is a component of, and contributor to, overt sexism. I also said that sexism was not simple.

It’s really, really, really stupid to lie on the very page that has written documented proof you are lying.

1) There is no such thing as “proof”. Basic science, induction, first principles.
2) Calling me a liar is not something I take lightly.

The fact that you took my words out of context and failed to recognize the big picture does not make me a liar, nor does your act of picking apart my comments, looking for contradictions. The fact that you think you have found them may be evidence that my communication/writing skills need some work, but that’s about it.

I am generally against censorship, but when comments are as repetitive, presumptuous, and accusatory as yours, it crosses my mind.

“Regarding the issue that sparked it all, I will spare you an analysis of what makes the incident a case of sexualizing (and creepy).”

“I was amazed that a young woman could hear the story and not find it creepy. Perhaps it takes years of experiencing sexism for yourself before you can recognize and understand it.”

You then state:

“I didn’t call EG’s behavior ‘sexism’”

Yes. Yes you did. I just quoted you above doing so. Twice. Using the exact word “sexism” when descring this incident. You stated that this story is something that you are amazed a woman would not recognize as sexism.

I stated I had an issue with this line, which says nothing about empathy for the point of view of another person, but only speaks to how Barbara would expect a woman to think herself upon hearing such a story :

“I was amazed that a young woman could hear the story and not find it creepy”

then you claim:

“What I amazed by is the inability to understand another’s view – quite the opposite of what you are saying here.”

It’s really, really, really stupid to lie on the very page that has written documented proof you are lying.