“Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities.”

–Francois Marie Arouet de Voltaire

I, for one, have been transfixed by the trial of Jerry Sandusky, accused of molesting an unmentionable number of young boys.   It has been difficult–very difficult indeed–to read the daily reports of what the witnesses have testified that Jerry Sandusky did.  And yet today, as the jury was deliberating, I saw a little nugget of vileness in a news story that almost made my head explode.  A story from the Washington Post popped up in Google News.

First there was this shock quote from Jerry’s paid mouthpiece and boy-rape apologist defense attorney Joe Amendola:

“He would be shocked and “die of a heart attack” if the former Penn State assistant football coach were acquitted on all counts in his child sex abuse trial.”

I mean, WTF.  What the hell kind of defense attorney talks like that?  Nothing more to say on that point, really.

Then there was this little nugget, really I think you could call it the buried lead in this whole affair [BARF ALERT!]:

Amendola said the Sanduskys were spending a lot of time praying.

A lot.  Of.  Time.  Praying. Yes.  Praying.

Praying for what, I ask.  Praying for his (alleged) victims?  Praying so that their pain and humiliation he (allegedly) caused them will be healed? Praying that justice be done?  Hardly!  No, good old Jerry is (apparently) praying to save his hide.  Praying for an acquittal.  Or at the very least a hung jury.

Apparently Jerry is a deeply religious and pious man.  He believes in God, doncha know.  And he thinks that the creator of the cosmos, the man who designed humanity so superbly (I mean, really God, cancer?  Fucking cancer?  Really?) is going to save his ass and change the jurors’ mind after they heard all of the evidence they heard, after his own adopted son has said he was sexually abused, and after his own scumbag lying sack of shit douche-bag has all but said it is a lost cause.

Prayer.  Last refuge of guilty.  And of Jerry Sandusky.

It is never too late to be what you might have been.
George Eliot

Even thought it has been criticized of late, I think that the lineup of speakers for TAM2012 is just fine.  But I think it could be better.  I think that there is one big name out there that is blatantly omitted from the TAM lineup, and one that I think every person who is planning on attending TAM2012 would love to see, and would be a big shot in the arm for TAM2012 publicity.  It might even sell a few more registrations.  I am talking about Sandal Edamaruku.  He, I think, would be a fantastic speaker to add to the agenda, and might be one of the best TAM speakers ever.

Who is Sandal Edamaruku?  He is a famous skeptic in India.  He has gone on TV in India to challenge people who claim to have magical powers to put up or shut up–on live TV.  He even challenged a so-called holy man who said he could kill him by casting a spell on him to do just that (hint on the outcome–Sandal is still alive).

Lately he exposed a so-called miracle at a catholic church in Mumbai by showing that a particular statue was not miraculously dripping water, but that the water was coming from faulty plumbing. As a result, he has been accused of blasphemy by local Catholics, and there has been an arrest warrant issued for his arrest for violating Indian law for hurting religious feelings.    That’s right, he is accused of blasphemy for exposing the truth, and the local police want him locked up until the legal process plays out.

Facing jail, he has alighted to Finland where he will await the outcome of the legal appeals that his lawyers in India will bring on his behalf.

Here is a man facing jail for exposing a fraud.  I can’t think of a more perfect person to bring to TAM to speak to us.  Perhaps the JREF has already tried, and Sandal either isn’t interested or has a previous commitment.  Even so, a live video feed would still be very interesting and most likely inspirational.  It should happen.  It must happen.  DJ and the JREF, please make it happen.  Bring Sandal to TAM.

If I am right, Thy grace impart
Still in the right to stay;
If I am wrong, O teach my heart
To find that better way!”
― Alexander Pope

The Mr. X saga, or upskirt-gate, or whatever you want to call it, is happily dying a ignoble death (see previous post, “One Alleged TAM Harasser Responds” for the story so far).  The two people whose  Facebook posts Greta Christina used as fodder for her unfair indictment of the JREF and DJ Grothe have now made it clear that there was never any evidence that Mr. X was using his now famous camera on a stick to look up women’s skirts.  Indeed, it appears as if this humble little blog played at least a small part in clearing Mr. X’s name, which makes the whole enterprise worthwhile.

We now have this comment (on the our previous post):

Rob Tarzwell says:

18 June, 2012 at 04:46  (Edit)

I don’t know how to contact the owner of this forum other than this thread, so I wanted to point out that the initial Facebook post has been edited to clarify language which might be read that I saw something when in fact I did not see any of the alleged behaviours. I am a witness to the distress, not to the behaviours which provoked distress. I have not, as far as I know, met the alleged harasser.

My point was and is to register dissatisfaction regarding JREF’s process in handling a serious allegation, *not* an airing of the particulars or outing of individuals.

It displeases and distresses me that individuals not directly witnessing the particulars have named the alleged on my thread, and those comments, once brought to my attention, have been deleted, three in all so far, to safeguard the anonymity of the alleged, who is absolutely *not* required to defend himself in this or any other non-formal forum. I will continue to delete any naming or outing of complainants or alleged harasser by non-involved persons.

The complainants and the alleged harasser deserve: anonymity for both parties, a presumption of innocence for the alleged harasser, and a presumption of good faith from the complainants.

I take these matters very seriously. The particulars are documented but sadly seem, in the most charitable case, to have gone astray or been mislaid. That, at minimum, doesn’t bode well for JREF’s chain of custody for handling complaint documents.

If the alleged harasser does not already have the names of the individuals in my thread who outed him, I will provide him with those as a basic courtesy.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/rob-tarzwell/tam-rebecca-watson-and-female-safety-two-anecdotes/10150932203392412

Lee DeLay, who is the person who allegedly reported Mr. X for the whole thing, wrote a number of comments to this blog including this:

5. saw “mr x” with a camera, on a pole, at ankle height. Was really uncomfortable with it and didn’t feel safe.
6. asked a friend what she thought – she agreed. We asked security to be called.
7. had to ask ‘mr x’ to leave me alone AGAIN. (and again… I am not sure how many times I had to actually. Other people did for us too, in case it didn’t sink in. – which it didn’t as I had to ask the whole time I was there)

So, Lee clarifies and says she only saw the camera on a stick, no up-skirt photos taken.  Apparently nobody now clings to the original meme, which accused Mr. X of taking upskirt photographs at TAM9.  Even Greta Christina has admitted as much.   Greta’s original thesis was his:  (1)  Man was taking upskirt photos at TAM; (2) This was reported to DJ and the JREF; (3) Whatever they did wasn’t enough; (4) They don’t now admit that it happened; (5) This lack of admission shows that they are a bunch of dirty liars.  Even though (2) is now known not to be the case, Greta is still clinging to the underlying truth of her thesis.  She says that she was right, even though she has been proven wrong.  Here’s the money quote: “The point of my post is not altered.”

Not altered, even though the fundamental premise was built on something that, oh let’s be charitable, was not actually true.

One of the comments from Lee that Greta quoted said this:

My report was that he had a camera, facing up, at his ankle on a pole. It made me uncomfortable because the only reason I could think of for that to happen is taking upskirt photos. Do I know he was? No, how could I?

Greta still maintains, apparently, that this was a report of sexual harassment and that DJ was a big fat liar for not admitting that he had been given a report of sexual harassment.  But it isn’t a report of sexual harassment.  It never was.  Greta kind of, sort of, in an obtuse way, admits this.  Yet she still says that the point of her post “is not altered.”  Was still, in other words, true.

I don’t see how Greta’s thinking is any different from a creationist who clings to the biblical story of creation even when shown the overwhelming proof for evolution.  She is engaging in exactly the same type of thinking that skepticism fights against–ignoring evidence, and when confronted with evidence against her position, changing the question and still maintaining that she is right.  But she isn’t right.  She was wrong when she wrote her original post.  And she is wrong now.

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.

–Williams Shakespeare, Henry V

It was by a woman’s treacherous hand
That I was condemned tae dee
Aboon a ledge at a windae she stood
And a blanket she threw o’er me

–MacPherson’s Rant, Compiled by Robert Burns

I sometimes wonder why I do it. I really do. I say to myself, “SA (that’s what I call myself in these moments, just plain old SA), you are never going to read Freethought Blogs anymore. Never again. Especially don’t go and read Greta Christina’s Blog. You will just get worked up.” But then, well, I succumb to morbid curiosity and find myself wandering over to the Wretched Hive Of Scum And Villainy. Which I did today. And what did I see? Another inane screed trying to stick it to DJ Grothe, TAM, and the JREF.

I know. Same old, same old. Broken Record. Been there, done that. But again, morbid curiosity took me. Call it a character flaw.

The latest fauxtroversy concerns an incident that allegedly occurred at TAM 9 last July. Greta links to this facebook post which contains the following description of what occurred, apparently at the Del Mar Lounge:

Two women approach me and another conferee. They are pale and trembling. A man with a camera on the end of a telescoping monopod has been attempting to surreptitiously take photos up their skirts. Yes, he was attending TAM. They had taken concerns to conference organizers and got little satisfaction. Hotel security confiscated the camera. I later learned the individual was well-known and had been complained about in previous years, and yet there he was again.

What really set Greta off was this Comment from that post:

Though I was less traumatized and more seriously angry I am one of the people to report the upskirt photo thing along with multiple other incidents by the same person the last day at tam last year. We spoke to dj about it during the event, he said we would hear back on what was going to be done and never did. We followed up on it for a number of months and nothing happened so we gave up. Its part of what has very much frustrated me about tam and other such events is that even when we reported harassment we only got lip service on something actually being done. I know DJ is busy and I don’t expect him to be the one to take care of things but I do expect there to be some response from the jref more than vacuous head patting.

Fair enough. This appears to be some first hand information, at least. But note, we don’t have anyone actually saying that this person actually took any up-skirt photos. Nobody apparently claims to have been victimized personally, just that they sort of had a glimpse of a guy with a camera on a stick. If he did so, he would have violated the law. He should have been arrested. He wasn’t. Which leads me to think he didn’t. And if he did, he should have the opportunity to show that in a court a law, not a court located in the bowels of the Wretched Hive. Indeed, a person on Facebook who apparently believes he is the individual described with said camera and stick (I will not name him here, I don’t know for sure he is the guy, and I don’t want to wrongly accuse anyone, so let’s just call him “Mr. X”) claimed in the comments to the post that he did not use this device to look up skirts, but that it was designed to allow him to take photographs of himself and celebs. According to him, he was contacted by hotel security, and the following took place:

They did not remove the camera, actually. They came up to me and asked what I was doing. I said I was using a camera and they told me they had a policy of not allowing cameras on the casino floor. I protested that I had seen others with cameras. They basically said something akin to (and I’m prarphrasing) “Yes, we turn a blind eye to it all the time, but it’s kind of obvious when you have that thing, so please put it away.”

DJ Grothe, President of TAM, has not, as far as I have been able to see, made a statement about this. Still, that has not stopped Greta from going batshit crazy, to wit:

There is so much I could say. After I scream and curse and throw things at the wall, that is

After the little bit of property destruction had passed, Greta graced us with this calm-headed observation:

D.J. Grothe, president of JREF and organizer of TAM, was told about these incidents.

D.J. Grothe was told that a male attendee of TAM had been using a camera on the end of a telescoping monopod to surreptitiously take photos up women’s skirts.

And he nevertheless made this statement:

It should be said that there has never been a report filed of sexual harassment at TAM to my knowledge and there have been zero reports of harassment at the TAMs we’ve put on while I’ve been at JREF.

Holy. Fucking. Shit.

How eloquent. What, exactly was the report? What exactly was said to DJ? We don’t know. As far as I can see, the only information we have from Facebook and from Greta (who apparently can’t be bothered to do any investigation on her own other than looking at Facebook, not even an email to DJ, it would seem) is that something happened with a camera on a stick, or at least a guy had a camera with a stick, that nobody was arrested, and that someone said something, we don’t know exactly what, to DJ.

At any rate, back to Greta’s first class analysis, where she confines the Universe to four (count ‘em) possibilities:

1: Grothe was told that a male attendee of TAM had been using a camera on the end of a telescoping monopod to surreptitiously take photos up women’s skirts — but thinks this incident wasn’t “reported,” because he is defining “report” in the extremely narrow, weaselly, goalpost-moving way described above.

2: Grothe was told that a male attendee of TAM had been using a camera on the end of a telescoping monopod to surreptitiously take photos up women’s skirts — but he didn’t think this qualified as sexual harassment.

3: Grothe was told that a male attendee of TAM had been using a camera on the end of a telescoping monopod to surreptitiously take photos up women’s skirts — and lied about having been told this.

4: Grothe was told that a male attendee of TAM had been using a camera on the end of a telescoping monopod to surreptitiously take photos up women’s skirts — but he didn’t remember it.

Did you catch that? Subtle, no? Either DJ has a bad memory or he is lying or obfuscating. Yep. Call DJ a liar and do it in a way that allows you to say, “I didn’t call him a liar! Far from it.” Wonderful. Maybe Greta should run for Congress. The possibility that the report she received might have been inaccurate is apparently not even a glimmer of a thought in Greta’s brain. The possibility that DJ was told something vague or something like “Mr X. has a camera on a stick” is not even contemplated for a nanosecond, apparently. Indeed, there is no effort to get DJ’s side of the story. Or even to contact Mr. X and see what he has to say. To call this yellow journalism would be to insult yellow journalists everywhere.

But do not fret, gentle reader. I took it upon myself to contact Mr. X–just sent him an email–and got his side of the story. And I will now share some of it with you, slightly edited to take out information that could easily identify Mr. X.

I write a blog called the Skeptical Abyss. I would like to ask you some questions for a post I am working on. I
would really like to get your point of view before that post goes up. Here are the questions:

1. Mr. X., were you an attendee of The Amazing Meeting 9 in Las Vegas in July 2011?
Yes. I have been to every tam since TAM-5__ including TAM ___. TAM is the highlight of my year and I credit it with motivating me to really work to be more of an activist in my life. I find it really inspiring that people like RS Lancaster and Rebecca Watson managed to make a pretty big impact on the world by sheer hard work and chipping away at false beliefs.

2. Have you ever been banned from TAM?

No, of course not. What would make you think I was?

3. [Question not about TAM or the camera and disclosing personal information--deleted]

4. Were you contacted at any TAM about having a camera on a stick/pole?

Nope.

5. If so, who contacted you?

Nobody

6. Were you kicked out of the conference or the hotel?

No

7. Was any of your property confiscated? If so, by whom?

Nope. Of course not.

8. Did DJ Grothe or anyone else from the JREF ever speak to you about the incident with the camera!
Um… not directly, no. I’ve seen DJ and spoken to him a couple of times since then. He did mention, indirectly, the fact that he has been disheartened by the amount of rumor and BS that can be spread at something like TAM. I don’t know if that was an indirect reference to the camera thing.

9. What impact do you think this will have on your [your life]?

That is the most absurd question I have heard in a long long time. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

OR at least it shouldn’t.

I had not even heard of this issue until VERY RECENTLY. Let me reiterate: This all started when I took out the X-shot (which is for self-photography) and [a person whom I have known for some time] immediately said “I can’t believe you brought a stick to take shots upskirts” and then turned it into a running gag because he knew it annoyed me.

I’m absolutely shocked that anyone is clinging to that like it is serious. And where the hell does this thing about me being kicked out of the hotel come from? What is next? Are you going to ask if I was arrested? Convicted? Targeted by a drone as a national security threat. The absurdity of this is striking.

That said, because some people seem to not be able to let this go and continue to bring it up, I don’t think I have much choice but to go on the offensive here. I have a . . . lawyer . . . . We’re trying to figure out what to do, because this is a very small issue, but it is not impossible that someone could blow it into a big one. We absolutely don’t want to start throwing out lawsuits for no reason, but sometimes you have to make a point in order to show you are not ignoring it. Let me restate, I do not want to do that, because I don’t like it when people get all trigger happy with lawsuits. However, I just can’t let it seem like I’m letting this be said without disputing it.

And really, I don’t want to amplify this situation. I’m going to leave it alone unless some idiot decides they want to actually try to disseminate this false information. If they do, well, we won’t stand for that.

. . . What matters is I don’t want to be known as “That guy who is associated with upskirt photography.”

See how easy it is actually getting first hand information? It’s just an email away. After reading all of this, I think that the whole situation with Mr. X has been blown out of proportion, and that there is absolutely no evidence that Mr. X harassed anyone with his camera or that he violated any law or policy of TAM. There is likewise a lack of evidence that DJ Grothe did anything wrong. Indeed, I will put the following imagined conversation between DJ and a witness out there as a likely scenario:

Witness: See Mr. X over there?

DJ: I know Mr. X.

Witness: He has a camera on a stick!

DJ: A camera on a stick!

Witness: Yes! He’s using it to look up women’s skirts.

DJ: Did he do this to you?

Witness: No.

DJ: Did you see him doing this to anyone?

Witness: Well, actually . . .

DJ: Thanks for letting me know. We’ll call security and keep an eye on him.

Speculation? Absolutely. Just as good as Greta’s speculation? Of course. Plausible? I think so.

Based on the evidence at hand, I stand with Mr. X (at least on this one issue and one accusation) and I stand with DJ. Hopefully this is my last foray into this particular breach.

;

;

From the OED:

Ball:  1.  A globe or globular body.  4.  A globular body to play with, which is thrown, kicked, knocked, or batted about, in various games, as hand-ball, foot-ball, tennis, gold, cricket, croquet, billiards, etc.  14.  a. A spherical or rounded part of the body, now chiefly applied to those at the base of the thumb and great toe, formerly, also a callosity on the hand or foot.  14 d. plur Courage, determination;  (manly) power or strength, masculinity, Cf. BALLSY a. and COHONES. (chiefly U.S.) [1928 D. H. L=Lawrence Lady Chatterley’s Lover xiv. 236 You say a man’s got no brains, when he’s a fool . . . And when he’s got none of that spunky wild bit of a man in him, you say he’s got no balls.  1958 in Wentworth and Flexner Dict. Amer. Slang (1968),  That copy is too week.  Rewrite it and put balls on it  . . .

The American usage is apparently borrowed from the Spanish word Cajones, or as the OED would put it “cahones.” And I  will admit, the use of the word “balls” consistent with OED definition 14d, meaning manly, gutsy, or strong is something that I try to avoid in normal speech.  I much prefer to use the word “guts” instead.  Still, I have never considered it a major issue in my life, or in anyone’s life, until Mr. Dr. Ron Lindsay, PhD enlightened me the other day.

Mr. Dr. Lindsay is the President and CEO of that august organization, the Center for Inquiry, which has the lofty goal to be your one stop shop for all things secular, humanistic, atheistic, and skeptical.  He writes a blog on the CFI website tracking important issues of the day in the areas in which his organization seeks world domination.  For instance, in past entries his blog has dealt with the difference between coming out as gay and coming out as atheist, a discussion of whether Edwina Rogers is the right choice to lead the Secular Coalition of America, and contraception and religious liberty.  Heady stuff, no?

Imagine my surprise, indeed my chagrin, when I innocently opened Google Reader this morning and saw the latest topic to be discussed by this distinguished luminary:  Condemning The Use Of The World “Balls” in the freethought/secular/atheist/skeptic community(ies).  This apparently is a problem.  An issue.  Something that needs addressing.  A crisis.  Mr. Dr. Linsday, in response I will use the immortal word sent by (then) Brig. Gen when confronted by a German surrender demand during the battle of the bulge:  NUTS!

I will be clear, I think that using the word “balls” should be confined to locker rooms, tap rooms, and billiard halls.  I don’t really think it has much of a place in polite company.  But it is, oh how do I put it Mr. Dr. Lindsay, part of the English Fucking Language, or at least the North American dialect of the English Fucking Language.  If anything, it is coarse term used in impolite society.  It is not a societal problem, any more than calling a weak willed man a “pussy” is.  Is it sexist?  Absolutely.  Is it inappropriate under many circumstances?  Of course.  Is it a problem in the secular/freethought/secular/atheist/skeptic communitiy(ies)?  No fucking way.

But, you must be saying: “SA, surely Old Ronnie Boy must have cited some evidence to show that this is a problem worthy of discussion.”  One would think so.  Alas, it is not the case. He cites nothing.  Nothing.  Again, nothing.  Just that he (correctly) thinks that the term is sexist and that people the people who read his blog, and who are assumed to thus agree with him on every issue as his orginziation expects people to agree 100% in lockstep or you are persona non grata  stuff, should agree and stop using this offensive word forthwith.

It seems to me that Ronnie wants to jump on the bandwagon that Becky Watson started with her “I will not go to TAM this year” rant, i.e. that sexism in the community is the meme of the day, and that he was desperate to find some way, any way, to get on that bandwagon before it breaks down.  Because, after all, what use is a bandwagon if you can’t hitch a ride.  But it doesn’t work.  It is transparent.  It is idiotic.  It is meaningless.  It makes Ron sound like a nincompoop.

You might as well write a blog post about the following problems in the community:  littering; speeding; shoplifting; swearing in general, et cetera, et cetera.  It is not a problem associated with skeptics, freethinkers, etc.  It just isn’t.  Please, Ron, stop trying to make it one.

Vapid; adjective 1.  lacking or having lost life, sharpness, or flavor; insipid; flat; 2. without liveliness or spirit; dull or tedious: a vapid party; vapid conversation.

I know it is against the rules to say anything critical of She Who Must Be Obeyed, Rebecca Watson of Skepchick.org.  I understand that many people in the fractured mess that used to be the Skeptics Movement consider her word to have the force of law, and that anything other than obsequious groveling at her feet is tantamount to blasphemy.    I will chance it, though.  I will take the risk of being burned at the stake–or at the very least being burned in effigy–for my transgressions.   I have never been one to follow the rules (at least most of them) and I am a long-time blasphemer.

Rebecca Watson has now authored a post that is unparalleled in vapidity and narcissism, informing us that she will not be going to TAM this year, or apparently in any future year as long as the new bugbear of the Skepchicks, DJ Grothe, is in charge.  How nice.  How important.  Rebecca speaks, and the entire skeptical world is supposed to stand in amazement at the power of her logic, her prose, and the courage she is showing by standing up to the Skepchicks’ Great Satan.  What a bunch of bull.

Admittedly, Rebecca has done a lot for the JREF and for TAM.  I would say that the relationship has been mutualistic,  and that she has gotten a lot out of the (now severed, it seems) relationship.  To her post.

Rebecca admits (begrudgingly, I think) that under DJ Grothe’s influence the percentage of women speakers at TAM has increased to about 50%.  She also admits (in passing) that (again under DJ’s leadership) TAM stood at the vanguard in instituting a sexual harassment policy at a major skeptical event.  Of course, no good deed goes unpunished.  Because, according to Rebecca:

I do not feel welcomed or safe and I disagree strongly with the recent actions of the JREF president, DJ Grothe.

What, you might ask, did DJ do that was so wrong?  It must have been something pretty heinous to get such a reaction.  It was, in fact,  a comment made by DJ to a blog post.  The comment is very similar to the comment left on this blog a couple of posts back, and here is what DJ said that engendered Rebecca’s disapprobation:

Last year we had 40% women attendees, something I’m really happy about. But this year only about 18% of TAM registrants so far are women, a significant and alarming decrease, and judging from dozens of emails we have received from women on our lists, this may be due to the messaging that some women receive from various quarters that going to TAM or other similar conferences means they will be accosted or harassed. (This is misinformation. Again, there’ve been on reports of such harassment the last two TAMs while I’ve been at the JREF, nor any reports filed with authorities at any other TAMs of which I’m aware.) We have gotten emails over the last few months from women vowing never to attend TAM because they heard that JREF is purported to condone child-sex-trafficking, and emails in response to various blog posts about JREF or me that seem to suggest I or others at the JREF promote the objectification of women, or that we condone violence or threats of violence against women, or that they believe that women would be unsafe because we feature this or that man on the program. I think this misinformation results from irresponsible messaging coming from a small number of prominent and well-meaning women skeptics who, in trying to help correct real problems of sexism in skepticism, actually and rather clumsily themselves help create a climate where women — who otherwise wouldn’t — end up feeling unwelcome and unsafe, and I find that unfortunate.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, but not to Her Highness, as she says: “DJ was blaming women skeptics for creating an unwelcoming environment.”  Um, no he wasn’t.  Not even close.  Not even in the same universe.  He is saying the some people of prominence are exaggerating the scale of the problem, which creates a false impression of the environment at TAM.  That’s fair game, Your Worship.  And while I think that sexual harassment is a problem, I think that Your Grace and Your Grace’s ilk have seriously exaggerated the scale of the problem by several orders of magnitude in a narcissistic effort to make this about you.  Everything always has to be about the Queen Of Skepticism–long may she reign!  If it’s not about Her Majesty, it’s not worth talking about.

But surely, gentle reader, you are saying to yourself that there must be more to DJ’s crimes than that.  Indeed.  DJ had the temerity to be anything other than the obsequious groveler Her Eminence is used to when reading the comments to Skepchick:

 

Rebecca: Off the top of my head, your quote in USA Today might suggest that the freethought or skeptics movements are unsafe for women. This is from the article:

“I thought it was a safe space,” Watson said of the freethought community. “The biggest lesson I have learned over the years is that it is not a safe space. . . ”

Apparently it is tantamount to treason to suggest that maybe Rebecca was not entirely accurate or fair in this assessment.  Not just treason, but High Treason.  Because, you see, here is what Her Ladyship had to say about that:

Over the past several years, I’ve been groped, grabbed, touched in other nonconsensual ways, told I can expect to be raped, told I’m a whore, a slut, a bitch, a prude, a dyke, a cunt, a twat, told I should watch my back at conferences, told I’m too ugly to be raped, told I don’t have a say in my own treatment because I’ve posed for sexy photos, told I should get a better headshot because that one doesn’t convey how sexy I am in person, told I deserve to be raped – by skeptics and atheists. All by skeptics and atheists. Constantly.

And did what about it?  Apparently nothing.  Did you name names? Apparently not.  Not even for the cad who spoke to you in the elevator in Ireland at 4:00 a.m.  Did you report any transgressions occurring at events to organizers?  Apparently not, even though this might be the only way to protect other women from being subjected to the same fate.  As for being groped or touched in non consensual ways, did you consider calling the police?  Because that kind of behavior is most likely a crime.  And such crimes are most likely committed by repeat offenders.  And you could have maybe actually done something to protect other women by calling the local constabulary.  Did you do that?  Apparently not, because you make no mention of it in your post.  Instead you blame DJ.  And just talk about it in USA Today and on skepchick.org without actually doing anything?  All talk and no action.  As opposed to DJ, who is all action, and who has actually done things to help women at conferences, like having 50% women speakers.

Rebecca also faults DJ for having a different memory of an event than someone else.  Shame on you, DJ!  Shame on you for not having a hard-drive for a memory and having the gall to tell someone that you remember differently.  At any rate, that whole canard about DJ “gaslighting” Ashley Miller has already been thoroughly debunked, explained, and resolved.  Apparently not to the satisfaction of our Grand Poobah, though.

Yes, Rebecca is going to take her ball and go home:

But officially, there will be no Skepchick presence at TAM this year or for the foreseeable future, and if we raise money to send women to future conferences, we will choose a different conference.

And to this, I say good riddance (only to Her Excellency,  as I am sure the scholarship recipients would have been good additions to the TAM community).  Rebecca and the Skepchicks have really become vapid of late.  They have not published anything of interest for almost a year, and have been sitting on their laurels spewing out lifeless drivel.  If there is anything that we can use less of, it is lifeless drivel.

Oh, and one more thing.  I find this next coincidence curious.  Look at this series of events:

On May 30 at 2:43 p.m. Greg Laden at freethought blogs posted that he thought DJ should resign.

On May 30 at 3:42 p.m. there is the following comment to Greg’s blog:

Daniel Finckesays:

May 30, 2012 at 3:42 pm

He could be replaced by a woman.

Can we nominate Rebecca?

And now on June 1 (unknown time), we have Rebecca totally trashing DJ and (we all know it is the case) trying to get him fired as President of the JREF.  Perhaps she has a successor in mind.  Food for thought.

Since my last post, the Internet rumble about sexism and sexual harassment at skeptics events has grown louder.  There has even been an absurd and self-aggrandizing call from a blogger at Freethought Blogs for JREF president and über-skeptic DJ Grothe to resign because he lacks the “progressive” ideological purity mandated by at least that one denizen of Freethought Blogs.

At any rate, the topic of this post is what should be done to minimize sexism and sexual harassment at skeptics conferences (I do not say “eliminate” because that is an impossible goal).  TAM has an anti-harassment policy.  It was instituted by DJ Grothe, who was an an early adopter and proponent of such policies.  The irony that a blogger at Freethought blogs has called for the resignation of a man who has been at the vanguard  in this area on the specious grounds that he is not pure enough in his ideology further underscores the idiocy of the call for DJ to resign).  TAM’s anti-harassment efforts seemed to have worked on at least one occasion.  Apparently this is not enough.  Recent bloggers and commenters have called for anti-harassment policies to be put on posters at events or to be distributed in handbills.  Some have even called for a sexual harassment training session to be held at the commencement of events.  None of this, in my opinion, is the answer.

From a legal standpoint, I think anti-harassment policies are unnecessary and can subject event organizers to unwarranted liability.   If such policies provided robust protection to women at these events, they might be worth it, but they don’t and they’re not.   Employers and educational institutions must have anti-harassment policies in order to minimize potential liability resulting from legal claims brought by victims of sexual-harassment.  Conference organizers do not have the same liability concerns.  But, by adopting anti-harassment policies, conference organizers might be deemed to have assumed a legal duty to prevent acts of harassment.  Attendees could claim that they went to the conference with that assumed duty in mind, and that they therefore expect protection.  In the event of an incident, they can claim that the organizers failed to carry out their assumed duty, and thus seek damages.  For a big event like TAM this might not be a problem, as I assume that the JREF has adequate liability insurance to cover such a claim and to provide them with legal protection.  Local groups that host events like Skepticamp are much less likely to have such insurance coverage, or even to have a corporate entity to provide a minimal liability shield.  The Ohio Skepticamp organizers recently enacted an anti-harassment policy for their event, and in my opinion this was a big mistake legally.  What’s next, and anti-harassment policy for Drinking Skeptically or Skeptics In The Pub?  Maybe one for your local meetup group?  Your Fourth Of July Party? There is just as much potential for sexual harassment at those events, except perhaps for the 4th of July.

Instead of a blanket policy, I think conference organizers would be well advised to have a blanket statement in their conference materials that they reserve the right to eject attendees from a conference for any behavior that, in the sole discretion of the organizers, they deem inappropriate, with no refund.  This gives maximum flexibility to deal with unforeseen issues, and avoids people trying to game the system by attempting to skirt the line of sexual-harassment policies without violating them.  It also assumes no duty and does not increase the chances of litigation.

Another problem with reliance on anti-harassment policies is that they are limited in scope.  Much of the issues in conferences occur in public areas of the venue, like the hotel bar and hallways.  These areas are not under the control of the conference organizers.  Kicking someone out of a conference for violating an anti-harassment policy does not necessarily remove them from the picture, and a hotel staff might have very different views about what is the appropriate level of violation warranting removal that conference organizers.  In fact, to put it into TAM terms, if a person is kicked out of the conference, they can still be a cad at the Del Mar Lounge, and they might even be more so because they no linger feel the threat (minimal as it is) of conference expulsion.

The biggest problem with anti-harassment policies, apart from potential liability, is that they have no teeth.  If you violate an employer’s anti-harassment policy you can be fired.  You can be expelled from school if you violate the school’s policy.  No skeptics conference anti-harassment actions will ever come close these negative outcomes for sexual harassers.  This even applies to speakers, as attendance at skeptics conferences is likely to be a small part of their lives and income.

None of the stuff tried or suggested so far is the answer.  The only real answer is to name names.  That’s right, name names.  I will repeat it–name names!  If someone engages in sexual harassment, especially someone well known in the community, the impact on their reputation from being named as a public sexual harasser could have a major impact on their life, including their life outside of the skeptics community.  Once some high-profile harassers are called out publicly,  and once the consequences of the behavior are known, there might actually be a real deterrent to the behavior.

But names are not being named.  People are afraid to name names.  Why?  They are afraid of being sued for defamation.  To that attitude, I say humbug.  I say put your money where your mouth is.  Truth is a defense to defamation in US courts.  An absolute defense.  If you tell the truth when you name names, you will win in the end.

But you are probably still afraid of being sued if you name names.  Let me try to give you some inspiration.  One of my favorite pieces of writing is J’Accuse by Emile Zola.  He wrote J’accuse because he believed that a great injustice had been carried out in the Dreyfus affair.  Because it was a great injustice, he was willing to literally put his freedom on the line, knowing that he was taking on the entire French government and knowing that he would be subjected to prosecution for defamation.  He had to go into exile in England as a result.  He named names.  He spoke the truth.  He took a risk.  All because he knew it was the right thing to do.  I have always found the last bit of J’Accuse very inspiring.  Here is a translation into English:

In making these accusations I am aware that I am making myself liable to articles 30 and 31 of the law of 29/7/1881 regarding the press, which makes defamation a punishable offense.  I expose myself to that risk voluntarily.

As for the people I am accusing, I do not know them, I have never seen them, and I bear them neither ill will nor hatred.  To me they are mere entities, agents of harm to society.  The action I am taking is no more than a radical measure to hasten the explosion of truth and justice.

I have but one passion: to enlighten those who have been kept in the dark, in the name of humanity which has suffered so much and is entitled to happiness.  My fiery protest is simply the cry of my very soul.  Let them dare, then, to bring me before a court of law and let the inquiry take place in broad daylight!  I am waiting.

If you know–and I mean really know, as opposed to rumors and hearsay–about skeptics behaving in reprehensible ways towards women at skeptics conferences, and if you think it is a serious problem, you need to name names.  It is your duty.  You owe it to the community, to the women in the community, and the people who care about them. You need to take the risk.   You need to name names.  Like Zola, you should do what you can to hasten the explosion of truth and justice.  Let them dare to bring you before a court of law for in inquiry in broad daylight.   Do what must be done.  Name names.