Elevatorgate

I suppose my first post should be about something contemporary.  I'm not going to recount the whole sequence of events, that's everywhere.   I'm just going to address a few things.

Rebecca Watson is pretty much a doctrinaire feminist.  This first became apparent to me with the circumcision issue.

Some months ago the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended a policy allowing a ritual procedure that does no permanent tissue damage in order to mitigate more severe genital cutting on little girls.  They were recommending allowing a trivial procedure, that does no permanent tissue damage, so parents wouldn't go to some witch doctor who would do the traditional horrible one, yet the feminists were still against it. It was then pointed out by many men that what the AAP was recommending was trivial when compared to male circumcision.  And this is when the feminists, including RW went off the deep end.  They ignored any nuances and immediately started comparing male circumcision to Clitoridectomys, and calling the men who made the initial observations "misogynists".

Her site also post links to a lot crap studies from women's studies journals that were designed to reinforce the feminist world view.

She frequently uses the the usual feminist escape clause code words; "misogynist" for any one who disagrees with her, "foo privilege" for anyone who points out that she hasn't made her case and "patriarchy" for a cabal, so secret that it's members don't even know of it's existence, that's out to keep women down.  All cheesy rhetorical tricks.

She also supports quotas for women on panels.  Like most feminists, she denies that she wants de jure quotas.  But as long as they are counting women and pissing and moaning if the numbers they want aren't there, they are pushing for de facto quotas.

Now to Elevagorgate.  Her talk in Dublin wasn't too insane.  She outlined how some of the responses from those who disagree with her were unduly violent and violently sexual; no disagreement there.  She talked about how fanboys would send emails describing their sexual fantasies involving her; yeah, that's inappropriate too, but I wonder how many men in the public eye get such messages from women, the only difference being that a lot of men would take a woman on on such an offer.

The one problem in her thinking that was apparent in that talk is that she thinks that feminism is a skeptical issue.  Yes, there is some overlap but there is also too much irrationality from feminists for it to be considered skeptical.

Then there was her Youtube video where she described the incident on the elevator.  Sure, it was not the best time and circumstance to approach her, and the thinly veiled sexual proposition was clumsy.  And she was right to point that out and especially graceful in not giving identifying information about the guy.  But she also displayed a certain lack of understanding (shall we call it female privilege, yuk yuk).  This was probably the guys only opportunity to approach her with out an audience and no one wants to risk being shot down in public.


stclairose posted a perfectly reasoned response and was slammed by Rebecca Watson in a public forum where stclairose wasn't in a symmetrical position to offer a response.  I don't know if this was just poor judgment or intentional bullying.

Dawkins' response was spot on.  She was making a big issue out of a socially awkward situation.  She responded with the usual cant about "privelege" and how she no longer respects him.

But the vast majority of the craziness seems to be coming from Rebecca Watson's supporters with emotionally evocative phrases like "trapped in a small space" and "potential rape".  I smell pandering and see PC knees jerking.

Yet, in spite of all this I still recommend her site.  They are true believers when it comes to feminism but there is a lot of good information there on other issues.