Talk:Elevatorgate
Contents |
[edit] Stef McGraw
There should be some mention, at the very least, of Stef McGraw who is referred to in the second video. A lot of those publicly attacking Watson, in response to rebuttals that the original video contained nothing objectionable, shifted to claiming that what they were really mad about is her "attacks" on McGraw and that "calling someone out" without actually getting her on stage to respond is a thing that is not done in professional circles. This is despite the fact that it's actually pretty common and McGraw herself didn't respond with similar vitriol, in fact remaining on good terms with Watson and the Skepchick crew. Apparently she even went so far as to help Watson out with a prank at one conference, but I can't seem to find the blog posts about it through all the chaff. Maybe someone else remembers this? --Kels (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Anything that makes this a good, sensible writeup would be good IMO. (Are there any such beasts?) - David Gerard (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit] A list of the abusive responses
Watson notes some here and here. Anyone got time to put these (and any others) into list form for the article? - David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
[edit] alternate angle
Could there be the potential that Dawkins was being critical of Watson's tendency to go after issues that are not of pressing importance?— Unsigned, by: Greatnecro / talk / contribs
- I doubt it. If he was, I think he would have been much more overt about it. Zero (talk - contributions) 19:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'll come in stronger than that. No. No way. Not a chance. Ikanreed (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also this is Richard "I had a little jar of honey" Dawkins. He's been known to go after issues that are not of pressing importance himself. Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also this is Richard "I had a little jar of honey" Dawkins. He's been known to go after issues that are not of pressing importance himself. Wēāŝēīōīď
- I'll come in stronger than that. No. No way. Not a chance. Ikanreed (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
[edit] is this a blog or wiki?
no encyclopedia should ever have a sentence start with "Seriously, watch the original video". aren't you supposed to capture events and facts instead of telling people what to do? this is not how encyclopedias work --92.193.109.106 (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I've put some links on your talk page which explain what we are about.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- RationalWiki is not supposed to be an encyclopedia, neither in style, nor in width of coverage.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Only in Social Justice Bizarro Universe
- Seriously, watch the original video; her only comment on the incident was to say "guys, don't do that". No shaming, no naming, no ranting. She has never said anything more than that; she did not accuse the man who accosted her of rape, she hasn't given any more details about him (and nor has anyone else), so no doxxing either. This was the impetus for years of hate. Decide for yourself if it warrants the following reaction:
The Elevatorgate controversy was never about the video, or her remark. The controversy erupted, because Rebecca Watson introduced Rape Culture and nuked Stef McGraw with it, when the very limited discussion was about double entendres in a confined space. Ms Watson accused "people in this audience right now" (McGraw was mentioned before) that they would laugh back down rape victims who stood up for themselves, and would believe that men could sexually objectify and assault women if they wanted to [ca. 15min]. This over-the-top smear and delivery caused the flame war (gross misrepresentation from a podium towards a member in the audience who would never be able to defend herself). Abbie Smith wrote "Bad Form, Rebecca Watson", and PZ Myers wrote "Always Name Names". Both of these articles are specifically about the CFI talk — not the video, not the "guys don't do that remark". All of those previous things were only added in retrospect, since, as the article notes, nobody cared about it before. "Dear Muslima" wasn't a response to Rebecca Watson, but to the flame war about something "slightly bad" (PZ Myers agrees here with Richard Dawkins!). This, too, was later retconned. Then, Rebecca Watson made it about herself, with "Privilege Delusion" where she also calls for a boycott of all things Dawkins. This was, yet again (just like the contentious issue in the CFI talk) swept under the carpet.
[edit] Sources
Rebecca Watson, CFI Leadership Conference 2011
| Because there are people in this audience right now, who believe this, that… [Ms. Watson reads slide] “A women’s reasonable expectation to feel safe from sexual objectification and assault at a skeptic and atheist events is outweighed by a man’s right to sexually objectify her.” That's basically what these people have been telling me, and it’s not true [clapping] – thank you Melody [Hensely/CFI Exec Director, DC]. Since starting SkepChick, I’ve heard from a lot of women who don’t attend events like this because of those of you who have this attitude. They’re tired of being objectified and some of them actually have been raped. Quite a number have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted. And situations like the one I was in, in an elevator, would have triggered a panic attack. They’re scared because they know that you won’t stand up for them and if they stand up for themselves, you’re going to laugh them back down. And that’s why they aren’t coming out to these events. — Rebecca Watson, The Religious Right vs. Every Woman on Earth, CFI Leadership Conference 2011[1] |
You might want to look up "Rape Culture" and you find the terms (e.g. objectification) and concept there.
PZ Myers, Always Name Names
| Rebecca Watson talked about this experience at a CFI conference, and one thing she did was to directly address, by name, criticisms of her reaction to being importuned in an elevator late at night. She specifically discussed a criticism by one of the attendees, Stef McGraw, quoting her and saying where the argument was found, and a few people were angry at her for that, and demanded that she apologize to McGraw. Which is, frankly, bizarre.” – PZ Myers, Always name names[2] |
Abbie Smith, Bad Form, Rebecca Watson
| No one gives a crap about what Stef McGraw said about you on YouTube. No one. [...] You bring that crap up in a speech, and literally two people in the audience know wtf you are talking about. [...] Furthermore, because the audience has no clue what youre talking about, they just kinda have to take your word for it that the situation is what it is. But thats not always the case, is it? […] How would they know if Watson totally quotemined McGraw? — Abbie Smith, Bad Form, Rebecca Watson[3] |
PZ Myers, comment directed to Richard Dawkins' "Dear Muslima" situation
| The guy in the elevator was not accused of being a rapist; I got the impression from Rebecca that she wasn’t even really worried about serious threat to her safety, but was annoyed that she was being pestered by an insensitive cad. It was “slightly bad,” as you [Richard Dawkins] put it, and she responded at an appropriate level to the problem. She basically said to the atheist community, ‘hey, guys, don’t be an insensitive cad,’ a suggestion I find remarkably uncontroversial — it’s a slightly good suggestion in response to a slightly bad problem. It’s darned good advice, even. — PZ Myers, Oh, no, not again…once more unto the breach[4] |
Boycott:
| [Richard Dawkins] therefore will no longer be rewarded with my money, my praise, or my attention. I will no longer recommend his books to others, buy them as presents, or buy them for my own library. I will not attend his lectures or recommend that others do the same. [...] But those of us who are humanists and feminists will find new, better voices to promote and inspire, and Dawkins will be left alone to fight the terrible injustice of standing in elevators with gum-chewers.
— Rebecca Watson, The Privilege Delusion |
| Then she called for a boycott of Dawkins' books. — Gawker, Richard Dawkins Torn Limb From Limb—By Atheists [5] |
These are the facts. I have the sense that you won't like them, but perhaps there is still something rational about RationalWiki. You will also see that PZ Myer is mistaken, to put it mildly, and is later mistaken as well, when he claims there was no boycott.
Aneris (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Notes
- ↑ The Religious Right vs. Every Woman on Earth, CFI Leadership Conference 2011, Watson
- ↑ https://web.archive.org/web/20110805152438/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/always_name_names.php
- ↑ http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/07/01/bad-form-rebecca-watson/ Abbie Smith, Bad Form, Rebecca Watson
- ↑ http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/03/oh-no-not-againonce-more-unto/ PZ Myers, Oh, no, not again…once more unto the breach
- ↑ http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists Gawker