Why I keep picking at the "Elevatorgate" scab...and why everyone else is, too.

So.

If you read my blog (all none of you) it's been awhile. Feel free to ignore the Deep Space 9 reviews below, written and ignored well over a year ago. Work happened, life happened, and lately, Twitter happened. I'm reviving this soapbox and linking it to my Facebook and Twitter accounts--which people actually read--just so I can pump out a long post. If I feel like people are commenting and reading, I'll figure out a way to revive this blog on a more permanent basis.

So.

Here's what I want to say.

The unfortunately-named "Elevatorgate" scandal is well into its third week now. For those of you who aren't familiar with the atheist, skeptical, or feminist communities, you may have no idea what I'm talking about. Here is a succinct summary. I'll include a link below so you don't have to take my word for it...at least point a skeptic ought to be carefully considering everyone's biases and emphases.

Rebecca Watson, aka Skepchick, was at a skeptical gathering and said a few words about sexism in the skeptical movement. Later that evening, she was taking the elevator back to her hotel room when a mystery man forever immortalized as "Elevator Guy" asked her back to his room for coffee. She turned him down, and a short time later made a video about her conference experience. She described the incident rather gently rebuked EG, saying that the situation made her "uncomfortable," and critically, said that she didn't care to be "sexualized" in that matter.

Now pay attention, because many summaries, notably the ones in the mass media, skip this part. The video inspired some responses from others in the skeptical community, some 100% positive, some critiquing. One Stef McGraw, an apparent admirer of Watson, took somewhat flip exception to Watson's description of the event as "sexualizing." Shortly thereafter, Watson took time out of a talk she was giving to roughly criticize McGraw, who was present in the audience, as nothing less than a defender of sexism.

This is McGraw's reaction, which has links to her and Watson's original posts. This is apparently her last word on the matter, and I don't blame her one bit. http://www.unifreethought.com/2011/06/fursdays-wif-stef-33.html

It's at this point that popular blog Pharyngula weighed in, which brought the matter to my attention. PZ Myers, whom I admire very much, came down heavy on Watson's side. As soon as I read up on it, I wasn't so sure. However at this point the Internet had caught fire.

Now comes the part mass media is drooling over: Richard Dawkins elected to weigh in with three rather ill-advised comments on Pharyngula. These comments were in every sense of the word wrong, empirically, morally, and tactically (presuming that he had a motive other than to troll). You can track them down yourself, but the short version is that they trivialized the right of women to feel threatened by an unsolicited comment in an elevator at all, the likelihood of women to be sexually assaulted in one, and overall reeked of contempt. It couldn't have been a better job of tossing on gasoline if he'd been trying.

In short, I'm of the persuasion that Watson and Dawkins have both behaved badly. So where does that leave me? Isn't "Elevatorgate" Watson vs. Dawkins?

No.

Mind you, at least one of those two has made some attempt to frame it as such. And it's in the interest of the mass media to depict it that way. "Plucky American blogger dethrones famous British scientist" is a terrific headline. And lo, how the tweeters and bloggers who unreservedly support Watson have descended. Dawkins is an old, white, pompous, misogynist man...in short, the old guard that must be swept away. Dawkins' charitable contributions and feminist advocacy are inconvenient facts easily ignored--much less that Dawkins is in fact a sexual abuse survivor and Watson, to the best of my knowledge, is not.

But no, this is not about Watson vs. Dawkins. The true problem that Watson by her actions unwittingly unearthed is nothing less than that the "skeptical movement" itself might be a misnomer.

The concept of skepticism, by and large, has not entered the debate. Elevator Guy, a figure who can be evaluated by one line of dialogue relayed by one tired woman, is fearlessly and shamelessly depicted by debaters however it suits them. An unreservedly pro-Watson faction formed almost immediately and attacked anybody who did not join their collective with the most strident language, reminiscent of the tactics of their chosen exemplar. Anybody who dared agree with McGraw's initial critique--male, female, straight, or gay--was immediately dismissed as a sexist. Criticizing Dawkins and standing up for Watson's original video are not enough. Agreeing with Stef McGraw that Watson was not "sexualized" (or at least she hasn't made her case) is more than enough to get you excluded from the pro-Watson brigade, which will then claim that it alone represents "women," "feminists," and/or "people who get it."

And as for the "other side" (which is about as monolithic as the Balkans)? Well, there have to my mind been some excellent responses. See here, and all the recent posts here. Unfortunately, it's also brought troglodytes and the worst kind of "pro-man activists" out of the woodwork. IMO this seems to go beyond the normal "if you post it they will troll" that's the cost of doing business
on the internet. These screeds are also relentlessly non-skeptical, they are sometimes hateful, and like Dawkins (but more so) they only weaken the position that misogyny is not rampant in the skeptical movement.

The emphasis on arguing loud and emotional, as opposed to well, has bogged down the skeptical movement in a flailing funk. Make no mistake, the simple anti-Dawkins story plays well now, but if this goes on long enough someone will write a real story and the skeptical movement, a small yet plucky beast at the best of times, will become a laughing stock. It's already been seriously suggested that this is a "schism." Allow me to get briefly profane: this isn't a fucking cult, assholes. It should freeze your blood that a group that has something like 99% agreement on major religious, political, and scientific issues is cheerfully devouring itself over Skepchick's anecdote. Groups that possess political power DO NOT get paralyzed by issues this small.

One of the contributing factors to our chronic case of talking past each other is an inability to agree to even the simplest of terms. So I'll construct a brief glossary:

Feminism: the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state (Cambridge). I can say that Richard Dawkins is not a feminist, but I would be wrong.

Sexism: (actions based on) the belief that the members of one sex are less intelligent, able, skilful, etc. than the members of the other sex, especially that women are less able than men (Cambridge). Disagreeing with a woman does not reflect that I am a sexist, but if I disagreed with nearly all women I'd start to wonder.

Male privilege: a sociological term that refers quite generally to the special rights or status granted to men in a society on the basis of their sex or gender, but usually denied to women and/or transsexuals (Wikipedia). Ha ha! I have the right to ask you out, but you don't have a right to ask me out, thanks to my male privilege! Actually, I kind of wish you would ask me out. Oh god, I'm so alone.

Women: A woman is a female human (Wikipedia). They are possessed of a considerable diversity of opinions, but are often treated as a single monolithic class by online debaters of both genders (pers. obs.) I speak for all women when I say you're a bitch!

Sexualization: to make sexual in character or quality (thefreedictionary.com, and just try and find a more reputable source for this definition). I'm trying to ask a girl out without sexualizing her but it's somewhat difficult. Perhaps I'll ask her for coffee?

Now given these definitions, I'd like to point out some fallacies I have observed:

1. This is not a case of "feminists" vs. "everyone else." There are feminists on both sides of the issue. This is true even if you believe that men cannot be feminists. A variant of this is pretending that this is "women" vs. "men." This is facially untrue, but be prepared to see the term "gender traitor" flung about if you point this out.
2. The proper response to a technical dispute in feminist theory (is an unwelcome come-on an example of sexualization, which is a bloody poorly defined term) is not an accusation of sexism. It would be impossible for feminist theory to do anything but stagnate if this was a standard response in the field. This is analogous to charging a fellow evolutionary biologist with creationism due to a disagreement over how many millions of years ago a divergence took place.
3. Strawmen, and by the bushel. A nice example is Greta Christina's post that everyone is crowing over. She presents a beautifully reasoned argument against a caricature that does not exist--an alleged group of men who are stridently defending mankind's "right" to inappropriately proposition women. Seriously, I've been searching the elevatorgate hashtag on Twitter every day for two weeks now and there's simply nobody saying this. I think she picked a troll at random to focus on.
Of course, Dawkins himself presented a strawman of Skepchick as blithely unconcerned with global misogyny. And Jen McCreight is apparently getting it from idiots over her posing for some calendar while simultaneously taking Watson's side that EG was sexist and creepy. Disagree with Jen all you want, but her calendar-posing has fuck-all to do with anything. (Guess that's more of a Red Herring than a strawman.)
4. There is much bewailing and gnashing of teeth over men and women who "just don't get it." The implication is that all boys and girls who got "Feminism 101" would agree with Watson et al. If you think this is true, keep in mind that a condescending teacher educates his or her pupils but poorly.

So there you have it. We are so eager to exclude and define that we have rejected all that is laudable about skepticism in favor of fallacy, categorizing, rejection. No matter who you think is "right," if anyone, this is a problem. If you prize the skeptical movement, you must become aware that it is throwing away its two most important strengths: unity of purpose, and its own professed rationality.

I'm going to close with a list of what I think the interconnected but distinct questions that "Elevatorgate" has raised actually are, and give my position on each.

1. Did EG behave appropriately?

No. His choice of setting and his actions made a fellow human being very uncomfortable.

2. Is EG a sexist or a misogynist?

Impossible to say.

3. Is sexism endemic in the skeptical movement?

Possibly. It is endemic in society at large, and many women have shared anecdotes about unwelcome male attention. I don't believe there is any stronger evidence than that however.

4. Does EG demonstrate this?

Fuck no. In my opinion fixating on EG and Dawkins is a crucial tactical error by the group of thinkers who seek to expose and abolish sexism in the skeptical movement. They are trivializing themselves by focusing on individuals who are natural allies (EG is a cipher but Dawkins has a strong history of feminist advocacy), and they are therefore not making their case.

When the conclusion does not follow from the premises, peer pressure alone will not unite the skeptical movement.

5. Was Watson wrong to post her video?

Absolutely not. Some do think she was: I categorically disagree. Many pro-Watson bloggers think this is the primary axis of the argument--I'm not sure what argument they think they're having. I (and McGraw) dispute a single point that she raised in the video. It was once possible to discuss this point of contention like adults.

6. Was Watson wrong to attack McGraw?

Yes. I believe that she set the unacceptable tone of the "debate," immediately.

7. Did Dawkins produce some grade-A shitty blog comments on Pharyngula?

Yes, see above.

8. Do you think that a boycott is an appropriate response?

No, it's a petty overreaction. Witness Ophelia Benson, Jen McCreight, and PZ Myers jump ship from this...actually, Watson's latest post seems to back away from this as well. I think she's actually a lot more moderate on the whole shitstorm than many of her supporters who have taken to the barricades on Twitter, Facebook, and various blogs.

9. What about the letters from victimized women to Dawkins?

I have no problem with the concept; I think it's good all around for him to recognize the wrongness of his comments. I can't speak in more detail because I refuse to go through the letters and nitpick them. I presume that they are all sincere and, thus, laudable.

10. Do I think that discussion of "Elevatorgate" should stop?

No, I do not, because for whatever reason this has hit a chord with hundreds of people and inspired real passion within the movement. All of the negative consequences of "Elevatorgate" flow from a lack of reason and empathy. Prominent individuals on both "sides" have laid into their "enemies" in the movement as eagerly as they've ever laid into actual misogynists, scam artists, and religionists. The culture of violent rhetoric and exclusion that many of us find so appealing has poisoned our movement, and the likes of Jeremy Stangroom are justified in their gloating.

Keep talking. Stop yelling. I'm not bitching about tone for its own sake; I'm imploring us to stop being a bunch of idiots who can't distinguish each other from genuine threats to our way of life.