Abstract People
Update July 5th: This post is not a personal attack. I have removed a quote from Martin Luther King that some readers thought was personally attacking people mentioned in the post, when that was not the intention. I have contacted those written about and they’ve informed me they do not see this post as an attack on them. The point that I am writing about in is how people can be unfeeling when abstracted from each other and how that effects people differently. I hope that clears any misunderstanding up.
Those who work hard to reach out to others with critical thinking are often the targets of misrepresentation and harassment, and although I’ve been at the receiving end of such behaviour on a few occasions with people trying to get me sacked from my job and threatening me, I wont pretend I have it as hard as many.
Rebecca Watson, for example, is a constant force of nature for feminism within skepticism, and the fact she has a folder on her computer where she keeps all the threats of rape that she gets saddens me immensely, as it should any rationally minded human whether they think she is right or wrong. She also inspires me by never giving up in the face of all the abuse.
Another example, today the news broke that police officers had visited the home of noted skeptical activist Sanal Edamaruku to arrest him. His crime? Solving the alleged mystery of a weeping statue and pointing out that it was a plumbing issue. The harassment from The Catholic Church is horrendous, but he isn’t backing down because he has evidence on his side, as well as the Indian Constitution that explicitly obliges all citizens to develop “scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform”. Sanal, whom I saw speak at Denkfest in Zurich last year, is one of the few people I consider a real life hero.
I think also of Jessica Ahlquist who campaigned for her US school to remove a prayer banner from display. When word got out about this she became the target of so much hatred, harassment and misrepresentation online, but she stood her ground, held her head high and maintained a level of dignity that I’m not sure I could.
Sometimes when you speak out about something, and you know you’re going to face a lot of opposition, you consider it and still speak out because it is the right thing to do, and that drives you on. I know because when I came out as the person who had complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about the Christian group ‘Healing on the Streets’ I knew people would paint me as the bad person who wanted to oppress others, and they did. However, knowing I was right pushed me on and I didn’t care what insults people threw at me or what illnesses they wished upon me and my family so they could see if I’d pray for healing.
Sometimes you do what you’ve got to do because you know it’s worth it. You stand by your word or actions and you roll with the punches. You face up to those obstacles that stand in front of you, and you tackle them as best you can.
No good thing ever came from a person giving up as the hurdles fell away beneath them, causing them to stumble as they progressed on. When problems stack up in front of you it’s almost impulsive to turn your back on them and walk away, but nobody ever overcame challenges by not facing them down.
Today it was announced that the blogger accused of calling Rebecca Watson a ‘cunt’ in email, when in reality he had called her a feminazi on his blog, will no longer be operating the Coffee Loving Skeptic blog.
On the Facebook group of the Coffee Loving Skeptic blog he writes he is
Sick of being misrepresented. Tired of being harassed when this is supposed to be my “hobby”.
We all react differently to harassment and it’s anybody’s right to quit and turn their back on it all, especially if it makes them unwell. It’s horrible to be harassed online where hardly anyone – even the smart ones – stop to think about what they’re writing. Hitting enter and sending your message can have a horrible impact on another human being that you’ve probably never met or gotten to know. Nobody deserves that no matter how terrible they may or may not have been.
It’s easy to dehumanise someone to the point that the impact of what you say to or about them doesn’t even cross your mind. Strangely, that all changes when it’s you being dehumanised and abused. Suddenly, you realise just how unmighty the keyboard makes you.
I think it is great that you showed both sides in this post. It’s wrong that people have harrassed both women and men. But their carrying on, is something that is a very personal issue.
I don’t blame the man accused of calling Rebecca a cunt for stopping his blog. I don’t at all like he called her a feminazi, but I feel the cunt comment was a different level, and people accusing him of “well it’s still ok over 25,000 people THINK you called me a cunt, even though you called me something else” is not ok.
However, we all have our limits. Rebecca is not attending TAM, the JREF really gave her a start. It was at TAMs that she met the people that encouraged her, the JREF helps support SGU, and also it was at a TAM cruise that she gave one of her first official talks, and it was a big hit. Their early support, and indeed her meeting the first skepchicks (the first skepchick party was at TAM2) and I hope being inspired by the earliest skepchick group of women, makes her not attending this year especially sad.
That first group of skepchick women are making a special effort to be at TAM this year. G6 (or Girl 6) who many consider the first to start to consolidate women into a force in the skeptic community, will be there. But, like the coffeelovingskeptic, there comes a time when you have to say “look I give up”.
Is the coffeeloving skeptic giving up on everything? Of course not, and it’s his choice. we can’t blame someone for saying “look I can’t take abuse anymore? I’m human?”
Rebecca has said it is her own safety she is worried about at TAM. While G6 and the others would love to see her, her choice for her own well being and safety, is important. For everyone there is a limit. Because, we all do have to make a living and leave a legacy for our children.
I think of Greg Laden and am so proud he is carrying on, and his own comments about how he worries about what his child will one day see. “Dad, why do you hate this man in the Army?” It takes bravery, and also honestly, and when the time comes I know he will do well. But if he were “look I’m going to make sure the apology gets out there for my child to see as much as the email, then I’m doing right”….
Only a few of us make our livings as skeptics. Rebecca is a professional, and she has had thankfully good support from many groups along the way. But I dont blame anyone not a professional, who has a life and a family, for picking their battles. And kudos for Rebecca for keeping on writing and choosing as a profession one that probably does not pay as well as if she were just a “funny” blog writer.
Someone once said, “When Rebecca does a funny post, she is as good as the bloggess”. But instead, while she shares her laughs, she also has chosen the harder (and probably less well paying) job of a skeptic feminist. It’s tough no matter what.
Poor old whiter-than-white Tony is the victim once again is he Matt? I think you are getting Hayley mixed up with someone inside your own imagination – keep projecting your prejudices, it’s fun to read.
Just like with CLS’ repeated apologies, this latest attempt at getting sympathy will not work for me. I’m sure he’ll be back up online somewhere, moaning, misrepresenting and moaning some more before very long. I can’t wait.
Sorry, I was unaware that feminists went round committing atrocities such as murdering millions of people because they were born differently to them.
OH WAIT, that’s because they don’t.
Yeah… Could you give me a definition of the word “femnazi” please? As far as I can tell, it’s used any time somebody doesn’t like what a woman says, but you seem to think you have some particular justification for it, so I figured you must have a clear understanding of its meaning that you could explain to me.
If I may comment, to put this into perspective.
Just today, in my real life, I was part of a “PSU” and got verbally and physically assaulted. I’ll be back at work tomorrow. Because that’s what “I do”.
Skepticism is a hobby, so I don’t really want to be miserable 24/7.
I agree in what you say, that a person should stand up for what they believe in, even if it’s uncomfortable. I’ll continue to do that, and it’s why I chose the career i’m in and not something more safe and lucrative.
I hope this clarifies things. My hobby is my hobby. Going to SITP/QED/writing about homeopaths/psychics/skeptidrama was just that. It won’t stop me writing to government, lobbying my MP about secular issues, or donating time and money when I can for those causes.
I’m not going to argue with anyone about this, as it’s not productive. If I wanted to be a victim, I’d talk the times I’ve been to hospital during my night shift this year, or about the death threats I get from people who have been in prison for worse things than asking someone for coffee in an elevator (That’s not meant to be a passive aggressive remark, it’s actually quite specific).
If anyone cared to ask me about it for the purposes of an article like this. (Research?) Then all they have to do is email me.
p.s.
Rather than make it look like we’re arguing on your blog (which will entertain people). IF you did want to discuss anything then email me. A back and forth exchange in private is likely to be more productive.
I don’t really get your point. Are you saying the using a keyboard is weak? This is, after all, the medium by which a lot of skeptics do their work and promote the campaigns they’re working on.
Or, are you just saying that I’m weak because I’ve used it in the past?
Or, are you saying that away from the keyboard I am more mighty? (I don’t think you are, obviously, but you’re not being clear.)
Basically what I’m saying, Tony, is that it’s horrible to be harassed online but sadly some people don’t realise this, and harass, condescend and dismiss others without knowing what effect it has on them, or even considering what it might do to them mentally.
Then suddenly, they’re the one getting harassed for something they said and they realise that actually, what they did all along to other people wasn’t so great or mighty.
Ah, I see. I guess our definitions of harassment are slightly different then.
Interesting piece.
It’s been clear since the early days of the internet that the lack of direct personal connection with the person you are writing about can lead the writer to be less well considered in what they say (putting it mildly).
The impact of what is typed can be felt more keenly
Personally, I think we are all adults, and should be able to conduct adult discussions around subjects (even uncomfortable ones on subjects we fundamentally disagree on), without calling people names, or “whiny”, or “feminazi” or whatever.
It saddens me that a number of people on various sides of these pointless energy expending debates. don’t see this.
Things I really don’t get is why the Watson “Cunt” comment was such a big issue. people make throwaway comments on twitter all the time, claiming 25,000 people (i.e. all of Rebecca’s Followers) think Tony called her a cunt is a vast exaggeration of the way twitter works, as
- She replied to PZ so only followers of both would automatically see it
- the majority of those wouldn’t even see it as they have cluttered fast changing timelines,
- a fair chunk probably thought “Who is tpr007″and immediately forgot.
- some unquantifiable but much smaller section may have thought he was a bit nasty to Rebecca Watson once. Would it really matter?
The only reason it became an issue was everyone wading in on the subject.
I have been called far worse arguing with people on the Telegraph blogs, and that has technically a readership far in excess of Rebecca’s twitter feed – should I threaten to sue the users for their inflammatory comments?
Dunno – I don’t have answers – it’s all knotty questions about what is fair comment, and what is harassment/abuse.
And a sense of proportion has got all skew-whiffy IMO.
I have to say, I had no idea who CLS was until this whole thing got well and truly riled up, and I went to look.
It does seem ironic that the same people who dismiss harassment as “just words” are so upset about this.
For example:
“I apologise for calling the coffee loving skeptic a nazi and other such slurs in the observation I wro- wait a minute…”
There you go. What are the implications of calling CLS a ‘nazi’? That’s not a ridiculous hybrid term that is open to interpretation (a term I dislike). That’s a very distinct statement. You are suggesting he is a supporter of the National Socialist movement. Now what are the implications for him if word of this gets around? Especially if he is employed in a post that requires working with the public. Think of the problems it could cause for him. Not only is that an outrageous allegation that is flagrantly untrue, I think it shows the level you have stooped to.
I recall this little gem as well: “I don’t really have a list of who disturbs me the most, but I’m pretty confident that ‘John’ in this article in the Gloucestershire Echo would be somewhere in the top half of that list because he falls under the category of people who use the tragic death of a child they don’t know to get a bit of attention for themselves.”
You later withdrew that because you discovered you were wrong. And here you are, with this article, being totally unable to comprehend that you are far from whiter than white. The ‘rather friendly skeptic’ or whatever inappropriate term you call yourself these days is just as low as the ‘nazi’ you despise. But, rather than whine here or reach for the victim card, perhaps you could do the right thing of making a public apology to Tony.
As you say yourself, ‘It’s easy to dehumanise someone to the point that the impact of what you say to or about them doesn’t even cross your mind.’ It’s easy to associate someone with genocide for the simple fact they disagree with you, Miss Stevens.
Better still, perhaps you should do the right thing and get out from behind your keyboard, pay a visit to Tony in person and make that apology. Maybe that way you could actually discuss this whole issue face to face with him.
Sorry if I missed something, but I believe Watson’s intention WAS to insult CLS, at least a little, so when she retracted the “cunt” comment, there wasn’t any need to be nice about it, because that wasn’t the sole reason she disliked him. In those circumstances, there is no situation in which she would be honest and you and yours would be happy. If she’d made a sufficiently contrite apology to satisfy you, and then gone right back to speaking her mind, you would have thrown the apology out the window “because she didn’t mean it”.
I was making the point that I hadn’t ever attacked him personally, like a few people have suggested. I haven’t called him names or misrepresented who he was, and actually I think what I’ve written in this post is fair, and I’ve been fair in my other posts too. Sorry if you missed that point by misinterpreting what I’d written.
Just a quick sarcastic thanks to all concerned.
I have spent the last few years trying to convince my partner to come along to the local SITP, that there are some normal people there. I explained there is a healthy mix of men and women even if the geeks and nerds are overrepresented.
The recent spat found its way into her Twitter timeline. Any interest I had engendered has been lost.
I doubt dissuading people from getting involved in skeptcism is either party’s aim but do not be disillusioned. That is the result of what you are doing.
Any group within society has problems, and the skeptical community and it’s many groups within are not without problems. By writing about, and attempting to address such issues we’re not creating other issues, and it’s unfair to suggest that.
Hayley. You are wrong if you really think this is not having a negative effect. I realise I have given you a single anecdote but infighting never looks good. Take the CoE on women bishops, on gay marriage, actually take the CofE on anything.
The Government on policies on which the parties agree. When the infighting in an organisation prevents it achieving its objectives something is going wrong.
Go back a few years and stand on the edge. Would what is happening now attract you to scepticism?
I am not apportioning blame or giving a solution I am simply giving my view of the effect.
Obviously I meant “The Government on policies on which the parties DO NOT agree.” :embarrassed:
Altered: I read Paula Kirby’s definition of what a feminazi/femistasi as referring to totalitarian forms of thought and a refusal to allow dissent.
Reading skepchick it seems as though that’s not far off.
The phrases are unneccessary but the criticism isn’t
I think Kirby hit the nail on the head, and the reactions to her comments have been even more over the top. It’s all a big farce.
Everyone else: As for this post, it reads like an attack, thinly veiled under a passive aggressive tone, and it’s obvious you are harbouring a chip on your shoulder for some reason. If it’s not meant to be, then it’s badly written, which is a surprise as you say you spent all day on it.
CLS’s comments on all these blogs has been a lot more polite than I would have been if i was the target. His post from over a year ago doesn’t even call watson a feminazi – it says she “doesn’t promote feminism but promotes feminaziism” and then acknowledes godwins rule/law as he can see the phrase is contentious – but as with paula kirby, his point is valid. She (watson) seems about as rational as that banana man (?) creationist guy
I don’t think i’ve been abusive in this post. But I’ll be interested to see if it makes it through the ‘spam’ filter
Overall though: it’s gone on for far too long. What happened to fighting Burzynski or Homeopathic “Doctors”?????
The thing is – the people I tend to see complaining about “no toleration of dissent” are being disrespectful or insulting.
I’ve run into a number of men who disagree, or don’t get why a particular stance is taken, and engage in a respectful, if unpleasant, discussion.
What’s not tolerated is treating the issue like it doesn’t exist at all, and treating the women who talk about it as if they’re somehow mentally deficient, childish, or paranoid for saying that there’s a problem.
You HAVE called Tony a ‘nazi’ on Twitter. I have not misinterpreted what you have written. It is clear as day. I suspect, given the new act of historical revisionism you have undertaken here, you have not expressed your point in the correct manner.
Given that you, as well as I do, know full well the nature of Tony’s employment, I cannot decide whether you are truly naïve (as you are with your views of the all embracing ‘feminism’, immature, disingenuous or just plain foolish to not realise the implications of calling him a ‘nazi’. Do you seriously think he follows the state doctrine of Hitler era Germany? Do you seriously think he advocates genocide based upon ethnicity, religion, political belief or sensory/physical capability? Well, do you?
Given his line of work, if word gets back to his employer, do you not have the plain common sense to understand how he could find himself under investigation? And for what; the self-important, self-serving ramblings of an individual who lives life through a keyboard. If you are prepared to make blatantly untrue and ridiculous claims about someone’s political affiliations then perhaps you should somehow develop the common sense and decency to drag your backside to Tony in person and apologise to him.
You’re a brave woman behind your keyboard. Seeing you come out from behind it and engage your opponents in person on the issue at hand would be a start.
This is what I said:
““I apologise for calling the coffee loving skeptic a nazi and other such slurs in the observation I wro- wait a minute…”
I could have carried it on to say ‘wait a minute, I never called him that’ because I didn’t. I was making the point that this wasn’t a personal attack and that it was just an observation. Wow…
I’m wondering whether I’m still missing the point here?
Man A says something childish and insulting about Woman B. Woman B says something childish, insulting, and demonstrably untrue about Man A. Man A requests a retraction of Woman B’s statement on the grounds that is false, defamatory, and potentially libellous, and provides evidence to support his request. Woman B offers a retraction that is both entirely insincere and fake (given that genuine apologies do not normally feature the phrase “LOL”). Defenders of Woman B point to Man A’s original statement and use it a stick with which to beat Man A and deny his more than reasonable request for an apology/retraction of a potentially libellous statement. Stalemate is reached as defenders of Woman B fail to acknowledge that, while Man A is also guilty of making a childish and insulting comment about Woman B (which he has at least acknowledged and apologised for), Man A expressed an objectionable *opinion* about Woman B, whereas Woman B made a demonstrably false *claim* about Man A.
As far as I can see that’s all there is to discuss here; everything else simply muddies the water. Yes, Tony Ryan shouldn’t have described Rebecca Watson’s approach as being that of a “feminazi”; it’s juvenile and unnecessary. But, Rebecca Watson should not have accused Tony of calling her a cunt, when he very plainly and provably didn’t. The two important differences to remember, and ultimately the only things that really matter, are, a) Watson’s statement was made as fact, not opinion, and is both defamatory and potentially libellous, and b) Ryan has apologised, Watson has not. Everything else is just unnecessary fluff …
I think you’re missing a couple things.
One is that a retraction is not the same thing as an apology. It is literally just a retraction. She said something that was factually wrong, and then admitted her mistake.
The ill-will never went away. She wasn’t pissed at him because of that one thing she thought he’d said, she was pissed at him because of his comments and commentary in general, and that error was the “icing on the cake” as it were.
The sarcasm was indicative of the fact that it would be dishonest to “sincerely apologize” to somebody for mistakenly saying they said something, if the things they DID say were, in your opinion, pretty much just as bad.
The above article is an observation I made and wrote, about how people – thats ALL people – can be dehumanised by those belittling them online. That includes Watson, Ryan, everyone.
We are ALL guilty of dehumanising others to a point.
I wrote my observation about this and people have presumed I am attacking Tony Ryan when I am not.
What I have written includes him, it doesn’t exclude him.
And you have just proven my point.
Regardless of what YOU think your tweet MEANS, will everybody else understand it? ‘I’d like to apologise for calling you x. Oh, wait a minute.’ It can readily be interpreted as meaning ‘I have no need to apologise because you are an ‘x’. And I stick by what I wrote; regardless of your meaning, you owe Tony an apology.
Should you be using the internet to express your viewpoint if you are incapable of doing it on an entire page, never mind a 140 character limit?
No she doesn’t. It’s plain as day to *anyone* Hayley wasn’t calling him a Nazi.
It’s shameful you’re trying to say she did.
I’ve missed a lot of comments here!
In Hayley’s tweet I don’t think she called me a Nazi, I think she was being sarcastic.
It wasn’t clear to everyone, and might have looked to an outsider that she had previously called me it and was subsequently apologising for it, when it was actually a bit like Watson’s faux-retraction. i.e. mocking me for what I said a year ago.
May I say that as a fan of the sadly-departed Righteous Indignation, I feel like a kid listening to his parents argue in the next room.
Terrible analogy, I know…