OK, let’s talk about hatred shall we?
The Watsonistas certainly do. Relentlessly. In fact, if you take their word for it, outside of Saudi Arabia, the greatest concentration of misogynists and rape apologists on Earth can be found within the atheist and skeptic communities and a woman that attends any of their events and escapes without being sexually assaulted is in a rare minority (and probably a traitor and collaborator).
Perhaps the Watsonista that most openly, honestly and unambiguously expresses the true sentiments of all involved is Skeptifem. While others go to great lengths to disguise their hatreds as concerns, she has no such inhibitions and just lets her venom drip. A great display can be seen in an extended rant against male-friendly women, appropriately titled inside the mind of a gender traitor. It is worth reading this extract with care as there is an unusual observation to be made –
What is a gender-traitor, you ask? I am sure you all know a few of them. When you tell your co-worker to knock it off with the stupid sexist jokes, she is the one who leans over to exclaim “No, its really true. Women really are crazy drivers!” The dude bro you were talking to is now smugly satisfied that a woman defended his sexist bullshit, and she has earned herself a new friend as a result. I was that woman for a little while, and a lot of other women have been too.
She “doesn’t get along with women”. She watches porn. She calls men pussies as an insult. She gets to be the cool chick. Guys will say she isn’t like other chicks, who act so fucking stupid and girly all the time. Nope, she is different. She isn’t always whining or talking about boring girly crap like jewelery or babies. The gender traitor usually bonds with men over some typically masculine hobby like video games, guns, violent movies, drinking, etc. She gets to be an honorary dude, as long as she shrugs off sexism and helps dudes feel better about themselves. That is her job inside the group of friends…
…All these were inspired by a general concept of manners and morals which was openly put into practice by a large section of gender traitors and could be established as attributable to them. Here, again, the life which I observed on the streets taught me what evil really is.
The part which the gender traitors played in the social phenomenon of prostitution, and more especially in the enslavement of women, could be studied here better than in any other city…
A cold shiver ran down my spine when I first ascertained that it was the same kind of cold-blooded, thick-skinned and shameless gender traitor who showed her consummate skill in conducting that revolting exploitation… Then I became fired up…
This is just stream of consciousness bile from yet another person seeking revenge on an unfair planet for unspecified personal reasons. Not like there’s any shortage of it – from islamist clerics to Westboro Baptist to black and white supremacists to gender catastrophists, it’s all pretty much the same stupidity with only minor variations in theme. Reasons don’t need to be specified, scapegoats can be broadly brushed and causality is irrelevant. All that’s important is to drive the wedge into the ground to clearly demarcate us and them and then just spew the pent up hatred that only bitterness and resentment can really breed.
But what’s really is interesting about the above extract is this – the last half isn’t Skeptifem. It’s the clown prince of comedy Adolf Hitler. With European references removed and gender traitor substituted for Jew, it is otherwise an exact copy of a passage out of Mein Kampf – the original text can be seen here. Not a whole lot of difference is there?
Hate speech1, and let’s make no bones about it, that’s what rants like Skeptifem’s actually amount to, is a slippery thing. It’s like an ice skating rink coated in oil. Most of it is just inconsequential flatus and nonsense. But some of it has come close to destroying the world. And way too much of it spurs the uncritical and easily manipulable into irrational action. It is made by unstable minds for unstable minds and consequences are the very last thing to ever be considered. For instance, consider the case of Valerie Solanas. She spent much of the ’60s spewing Skeptifem style misandrist venom culminating in her magnum opus, the SCUM Manifesto. Then, some years later, in what can only be described as a Mark David Chapman moment using logic that only made sense to her2, she decided to try and kill Andy Warhol.
Now I will vehemently disagree with anyone who may claim that Solanas’ writings are the reason she attempted murder. That is the censor’s trump card and a dangerous nonsense. I will however say the circumstances in which Solanas wrote can be viewed as giving her a helpful nudge. Consider her life – it was an aquarium. Sealed off and protected from all criticism and contrary opinion; spurred on by a bunch of encouraging, confirmation bias groupies; reading the same kind of hate nonsense from others part of her scene; and complete isolation from the kind of information and interaction the rest of the world deals with as part of day-to-day life. It was a bubble sealed off from reality. It is not surprising that social inhibitions, empathy and reason would melt away. And for a personality like Solanas’, compounded by probable diagnosable schizophrenia, it was the perfect way to tip her over the edge into darkness.
This is precisely the same kind of reality bubble occupied by Skeptifem, Rebecca Watson and most of the rest of the Watsonista gang. Is it any surprise that they are as deranged and sociopathic as they are? Or that once you are so insulated from reality, and lose all empathic touch with those outside of your clique, that hatred becomes a natural response for dealing with anything which is alien? The other?
Hatred on it’s own is to an extent excusable. Under these insular conditions, if you’re not the sharpest knife in the drawer, reacting with hatred to the alien is not all that different from dogs and cats reacting to each other. It’s only when this kind of hatred gets coupled with ideology that it becomes something far, far more toxic.

A very shy Skeptifem, exhausted after a hard day's denunciation. You can probably guess which one she is.
The poison that has been spewed thus far by Skeptifem, such as what’s above, is in no way unique or isolated. For a start, there is not a single critic of her nonsense to be found anywhere in the Watson apologist camp. This in itself is bad enough, but what is worse is that most reiterate much of what she says, albeit in diluted and obfuscatory form. The sympathy for her views is close to universal – so much so that Skepchick itself thinks Skeptifem is such an outstanding representative of the community that she deserves her own in depth interview.
The best example of grinding the same gender traitor millstone comes from Rebecca Watson herself. In her very first video on the subject of Elevatorgate, and on numerous occasions since, Becky has been branding Paula Kirby a traitor. But that is all mild in comparison to the malice Becky directed at Steph McGraw (more detailed analysis here). From the outset, these women have been punished for daring to dissent from the official opinion as preached by Watson. Many, many other women in the community have since also been branded for similarly showing dissent. Many have also been intimidated into silence.
A similar attitude has been displayed by many other prominent Watsonista bloggers – dissent from women will not be tolerated. Your reasoning for disagreement is irrelevant, the crime lies simply in the act of disagreeing and you will be branded as a traitor. This bullying is a pretty constant feature on any Watsonista blog that you look at. A fairly typical example can be found from Ophelia Benson on Butterflies and Wheels in a blog on the upcoming kangaroo court advertised as the CFI Women in Secularism conference. Not only does she take an obligatory stab at ScienceBlogs Abbie Smith for treachery, she gives a head-kick to another less prominent female blogger to put her in her place. The original smackdown (for questioning the whole idea of the conference), hastily redacted (but caught in screencap), simple read –
Aw fuck you, [blogger in question].
This was the response to a pertinent point being raised in an amusing fashion – open hostility. Kind of like islamists responding to Muhammed cartoons. Heresy will not be tolerated. It worked. The blogger has ceased to be any part of the public conversation on these topics. Dissent will be silenced. And this is only what’s visible. There is a fairly steady stream of women commenting here in private – all out of fear of recrimination from speaking up in public. Wonderful.
Herein lies the paradox which underscores the maxim the path to hell is paved with good intentions – all of this atheist misogyny nonsense began ostensibly to redress the largely erroneous assumption that women were intimidated from actively participating in the atheist and skeptic communities. Yet the resulting jihad has ended up driving thousands of women either underground or into abandoning the communities altogether. Well done Becky. Jolly well done. If only I could believe that this was not your actual intent. And we haven’t even touched on the vile slander and hatred that has been directed at men.
In realpolitik terms, what we are witnessing is the good old fashioned sports of witch-hunting, guilt by association and blacklisting – exercised with a finesse not seen since the glory days of Senator Joe McCarthy. Though its foundation is in a perverted ideology, its practice is ruthless, pragmatic, utterly amoral and Machiavellian.
Nor are these practices limited to mud slinging on Youtube and in blogs. Watson extends this to suggestions for a list of prohibited authors and books that falls just short of calling for public book burning. And the Baboon King PZ Myers grabs hold of it with both fists and has entire Pharyngula wiki entries devoted to destroying individuals on top of a common blacklist of known dialectic criminals – a blacklist once devoted to genuine loons such as Dave Mabus has now been expanded to anyone that deviates from accepted groupthink. And in fact, as I personally discovered, you don’t even need to participate in the baboon board to merit inclusion.
But perhaps the crowning achievement of dissent purging again belongs to Rebecca Watson herself. Becky has earned herself a permanent ban from randi.org for using inadvertant account privilege escalation to gain unauthorised administrative access to the Randi forums to destroy data and user identities of those she had disagreements with. In online terms, this was an action that is the equivalent of cold-blooded murder, or more appropriately, as extrajudicial political assassination. Destroying the existance of other users is a final taboo – it is a line that pretty much any non-sociopathic internet user will never cross. It is very firmly in the never do, under any circumstances basket. Yet Becky committed this act without hesitation or blinking, proceeded to brag about it and even now, simply dismisses it as a trivial joke that has been exaggerated. No Becky. It was not a joke. It was a crime. It is a crime that is punishable by jail time in very many jurisdictions in the world. It is many things Becky, but a joke is not one of them. This is perhaps the clearest indicator of the sheer amorality and ethical destitution of Rebecca Watson there is.
.
.
It has now long past the point where this atheist misogyny meme as instigated by Watson and Greta Christina some years ago even needs a crypto- prefix to describe it as fascism. It has become raw fascism. Tally all of the behaviour up, and they have checked more than a sufficient number of boxes of criteria to qualify as a fascist movement to satisfy the UN or any political science scholar3.
We have a small minority of maniacs exploiting guilt by association, fear, intimidation, threat, ostracism and even data destruction to promote their own narrow brand of ideology at any expense, fueled by the amoral fanaticism of some incoherent greater good for which the ends justifying the means. It is a vile replay of every mass hatred movement that has cursed human history throughout the ages. And in order to be able to stomach it themselves, they concoct a sugar coating by painting themselves as some kind of enlightened liberalism – liberal only by the perverted definition pushed by the likes of Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter.
It has moved beyond being simple insult slinging and bitch fighting into territory that is extremely dangerous – as highlighted to me by a couple of female academics I have spoken with regarding this Rebecca Watson sideshow. These are highly intelligent, highly qualified female intellectuals, and they now fear the impact that speaking out will have on their academic careers. The parallels to what has happened in the past, and still happens, to males in academia that have challenged idiocy is fresh in everybody’s minds – these women have come to realise that they too are vulnerable to such attacks if they speak their minds.
This is the ultimate aim of any fascist movement – to completely shutdown dissenting opinion, by fear if necessary, and promote an ideological monoculture that has zero tolerance for the opinions or rights of others. Superficially, there is the impression that the Watson’s, Skepchicks, Pharyngudrones and miscellaneous others that choose to wallow in slave mentality are winning. But that is only if you believe the noise. There is some degree of comfort to be found in the large numbers unaligned atheists and skeptics covering the whole political and social spectrum that now see this nonsense for what it is – a divisive, destructive and dangerous brand of fascism that has nothing in common with either movement.
The problem lies in expressing the discontent and the greatest impediment to this, unfortunately, is the Center for Inquiry itself. As long as CFI continues to provide the stage, the propaganda and the funding for the Watsonistas4, it will be an uphill battle. The events they are promoting have strayed so far away from the organisation’s charter it has simply ceased to be either relevant or to represent the interests of the communities it claims to support.
Consider, what business does CFI have in supporting Amanda Marcotte? A woman that not only wants to suspend the right to presumption of innocence for men accused of sex crimes against women (but not against males or children because that isn’t as important) and seems to be in favour of Guantanamo Bay style military tribunals for the same purposes (so all that dumb regular law stuff can be ignored), amongst an endless list of other serious derangement. Seriously, WTF has that got to do with what CFI is supposed to be doing? CFI as an organisation has been derailed and it is impossible to place any faith in its integrity in its current incarnation.
Perhaps the final word should go to Steve Novella from his blog posted only today –
This type of thinking speaks to the more primitive, emotional, pattern-seeking part of the brain. It probably will also tend to attract those in the community who have a predisposition to conspiracy thinking. Social media can further be used to magnify these effects, creating a self-reinforcing feedback loop. A specific manifestation of this is the comment section of blogs, or in forums.
In these forums people can get each other worked up, and confirmation bias takes over with each person giving their supporting anecdotes. Dissenters may be chased away, or even censored. The conspiratorial jihad group mentality then takes on a life of it own.
Novella is writing about hostility towards scientists, but his words in every respect are just as pertinent to everything that has gone down with the Rebecca Watson circus.
One can only hope that Novella applies his observations consistently, right down to who he invites to host SGU. So please do us a favour Steve. Do your bit to inch us back towards sanity. It shouldn’t need to be explained.
1 – No I don’t advocate “hate” legislation of any kind. No I will not argue my reasons here. Suffice it to say existing laws more than cover all eventualities without building in exceptionalist clauses.
2 – Actually it was most likely due to thinking Warhol stole a script to one of her plays. He actually thought the play was an obscenity sting by undercover smut cops, threw it in a box somewhere and forgot about it. It was discovered again after his death. See the cesspit of lies.
3 – A useful checklist is “The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism” first published in Free Inquiry, Spring 2003 –
http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm
4 – CFI itself is eternally crying poor in the last couple of years, seemingly teetering on insolvency. Yet they have no shortage of funds to throw at ideologues like Watson. This is perhaps the biggest “please explain” that can be posed.
September 2, 2011 at 5:11 pm
What you said.
(Somewhat ironic considering the closing paragraphs!)
I am reasonably confident that Dr. Novella may one day not let his innate courtesy to his friends continue to over-ride his clear commitment to reason and consistency.
Mind you, a fair number of folk that I had until recently assumed were above blatant and gross double-think have disappointed me with florid displays that would make Orwell blush, so perhaps my confidence is mis-placed. I hope not.
After all, and in the long-run, what investment can he possibly have in prolonging Watson’s psychopathy?
September 2, 2011 at 8:58 pm
I’m not so confident regarding Novella on this issue. He is too much a scientist/researcher to get deeper involved. He’ll probably ignore most politics and in-fighting and stick with being mr. nice guy and mr. science. I doubt he’d have much to say unless there were peer reviewed studies on the topic, and then he’d only dissect the studies as such. IMO
September 2, 2011 at 9:25 pm
That’s why I love him. It makes a nice change to get to the science without all the drama. I’d have a beer with Novella any day of the week.
September 4, 2011 at 3:08 am
Steven Novella is lovely. I’ve met him on a few occasions and spoke with him at length. I’m not sure he on board with RW’s “view” about Shaftgate, but he does not make waves. Steven Novella has better things to do, like run the neurological department at Yale, write for Science Based Medicine and Neurologica, be a medical advisor for Quackwatch, senior fellow at the JREF, and more. I don’t know how he has enough hours in the day. He is my hero. This drama is below him.
I was a bit horrified at the episode of SGU in which the panel discusses the fiasco, and Jay, Bob, Evan, and Steve all go overboard to agree with her. Of course if they didn’t, she would be off the show, which would be a very good thing indeed. I’m hoping she continues the idiocy and it becomes too much to keep her as a panelist. As I’ve said before, she has been sexist since day one, and Perry was the only one who would call her on it, or at least make her look foolish. I miss Perry. What the SGU needs is someone with an attitude like Perry’s to counter the “sensitive” reaction of the others. I still love the show, I just try to ignore her.
September 2, 2011 at 9:22 pm
I think perhaps it is a bit unfair to put Watson in the same category as Unskeptifem; she makes Watson look like an MRA.
See the “implicit consent” post on PZ’s blog from last year: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/implicit_consentwomen_can_be_s.php
At post #514, Unskeptifem concludes that a female poster must have mental issues because she disagrees with Unskeptifem’s hideously warped world-view.
I tried fighting the good fight, under the handle “Darren”, but it was just too draining arguing 100 against 1.
Ironically, the only good point against me was made by PZ who (rightly) chastised me for posting a link to the video which did not obscure the womans face which, in retrospect, was an inconsiderate oversight on my part. I doubt whether doing so would have changed much, though – other than robbing PZ of the chance to take the moral high ground.
September 2, 2011 at 11:19 pm
I thought it was quite good that you posted that video. Seeing what really happened helped me decide what I thought about the situation. Her face was important, I think, because it showed her expressions in response to her friend tugging her shirt down further to be minor momentary half-annoyance, and also showed that what was being claimed as her saying “no!” was a vague mouth movement that could have been anything.
An actual video of the situation is much better than describing things in words second hand, or worse, by guess or assumption. It’s footage of the actual event that is being years later called a crime.
September 2, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Darren, this is why I say Skeptifem is fundamentally more honest than Watson. She does not disguise her hideousness. Watson, however is far worse. She conceals her malice, manipulation and backstabbing behind a superficially pleasant facade. It’s called “marketing”. This is the difference between a common maniac and an amoral psychopath. Derangement aside, I think Skeptifem is capable of rudimentary ethical behaviour – Watson proves repeatedly she is not.
September 3, 2011 at 11:19 am
A valid point. I guess we can be thankful that Skeptifem does not (yet) have the power of Skepchick Industries behind her.
September 4, 2011 at 3:19 am
Darren,
your comment here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/implicit_consentwomen_can_be_s.php#comment-2694762
is *true* critical thinking. If I had simply read PZ’s post, I would have sided with him, but a true skeptic weighs the evidence and does not jump to conclusions based upon an emotional response.
Unfortunately, when it comes to “womens issues”, critical thinking is thrown out the window.
Would someone please post the link to the video? I’d like to have a look for myself.
September 4, 2011 at 3:34 am
Darren again spot on: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/implicit_consentwomen_can_be_s.php#comment-2694805
September 3, 2011 at 2:03 am
[…] The Watson Circus – Their Kampf (greylining.wordpress.com) […]
September 3, 2011 at 4:52 am
Skeptifem is sort of Solanas lite — she is not yet publically and straight-forwardly calling for the death of most men, nor, so far as I can determine, does she buy into the ideology of the late 70s early 80s weirdo separatist cult.
Skeptifem is somewhat self-contradictory too — no surprise I suppose. I posted in her “Gender Traitor” screed that her definition of gender traitor painted a quite specific picture of Watson, and she, Skeptifem, agreed saying she was disappointed with Watson’s behaviour. Yet she continues to kiss Watson’s ass as vociferously as the rest of the Watsonistas.
Judging by his general approach and behaviour, I remain somewhat non-plussed and surprised that Novella continues to enable Watson to spew her ideology through the SGU podcasts. In retrospect, I am baffled that he invited her on in the first place. I long since stopped listening to SGU specifically because of Watson’s inclusion. So far as I could determine, she added nothing substantive nor meaningful beyond snark, arrogance, and her ongoing campaign to shame anyone and everyone who not only may not agree with her, but who so much as dares to question her ideology.
And yes, Franc’s right, Skeptifem is more honest than Watson and is in that sense less toxic.
September 3, 2011 at 10:21 am
SGU was funnier back when Perry was on it because Perry and Watson would rattle each others cages. Or at least that’s how I remember it. I don’t like the dynamic on the show anymore. Now I just read things like the Science Based Medicine blog.
September 4, 2011 at 3:22 am
“So far as I could determine, she added nothing substantive nor meaningful beyond snark, arrogance, and her ongoing campaign to shame anyone and everyone who not only may not agree with her, but who so much as dares to question her ideology.”
That is a precise and completely accurate description of RW on the SGU.
September 3, 2011 at 10:15 pm
So, just for the record, nazis and racists hate people for what they are, they don’t passionately disagree with people over what they have chosen to do (which is what I did in my post). It is a difficult comparison because you would have to assume that hitler wrote essays asking jews to stop being jewish, as if it were a voluntary act. The only other way it would make sense is if you think collaboration with sexist men is an immutable characteristic of some women rather than a behavior.
Also, agreeing with rebecca watson about something (like when people say or do sexist shit to her) doesn’t mean I agree with her about everything. Outside of the recent issues I have had plenty of criticism for skepchick, including things RW has been a part of. It should be difficult to label me a “watsonista” in light of that. Have you mistaken feminists with the borg? We can all speak for ourselves, thanks.
In light of all this, it is kind of hilarious to read a critique that says that I make a great effort to draw inflexibile dividing lines between groups and that I paint others with too broad a brush. Projection, much?
Thanks for the traffic.
-Skeptifem
September 4, 2011 at 4:18 am
In reply to Skeptifem #5:
“So, just for the record, nazis and racists hate people for what they are, they don’t passionately disagree with people over what they have chosen to do (which is what I did in my post).”
Does that mean your non-racist, non-nazi misandry is based on the fact that men choose to be men?
“It is a difficult comparison because you would have to assume that hitler wrote essays asking jews to stop being jewish, as if it were a voluntary act.”
Er, um, last I heard, being Jewish was, in fact, a voluntary act. Surely you’re not equating judaism with race, are you?
“Have you mistaken feminists with the borg?”
Gender feminists are the Borg, and that’s not a mistaken take.
September 4, 2011 at 4:38 am
completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, but I happen to find the little things in life the most pleasing.
The random Gravatar image that was chosen for Skeptifem is such sweet irony.
September 4, 2011 at 4:56 am
LOL. I was wondering how those thingies appeared; persistent randomicity for teh win.
I like mine.
September 5, 2011 at 5:12 pm
The gravatars are random – I have no control. If I did, everyone that didn’t have their own would be Becky.
September 6, 2011 at 2:35 am
Skeptifem, you can justify your batshittery however you please – but it doesn’t alter the fact that you are batshit insane.
After reading and seeing Becky and you ranting all this time, I am no longer able to distinguish between you and whitepower Stormfront skinheads. You occupy the same psychological space. There is no difference. You hate the world, you hate yourselves and you take it all out on scapegoat demographics that are convenient to you. No difference whatsoever.
What is your problem anyway? What horrid skeletons are in your closet? Some boy in high school? “He promised not to come in my mouth but then HE DID!!! I have to take revenge on the whole planet now.“
Whatever it is, this is sickening. Infinite rage and punishment for finite grievance. It’s all so xtian I want to barf.
September 4, 2011 at 4:59 am
Exactly what I wrote in response to RW’s campaign against Lawrence Krauss several months ago, although not so well articulated. They are pissed off, see only in black and white, and are taking out the anger on someone else more easily accessible. Here’s how skeptifem sees hatred seething out of RDs letter in another post on her site.
September 4, 2011 at 8:52 am
Again, well done. It’s nice to see skeptifem engage in a response and I wish she would stay to present a more cogent argument. As it is she sort of demonstrates what the post is about. I am still rather dismayed in the lack of rational response to a post like this (and others) from the likes of PZ, Ophelia, etc. Marcotte isn’t capable of a decent response, but someone should try and engage the Watsonista point of view.
September 4, 2011 at 11:35 am
bluejohn: I am still rather dismayed in the lack of rational response to a post like this (and others) from the likes of PZ, Ophelia, etc.
And you won’t get any either. Without their baboon armies behind them they are like crippled dogs peeing themselves. Each time they engage outside of environments they don’t have absolute control of, they disgrace themselves – so they no longer do. PZ has shown the true depths of his vacuity here twice (here and here) – on both occasions hurling lofty concepts and ad himinems, embarrassing himself and only proving how incoherent he is about basic dialectic. For fuck’s sake, he doesn’t even seem to know what a straw man is – just throws the term at you and hopes it intimidates. Outside of nuts-and-bolts biology and catholic baiting, the man is a proven imbecile.
September 6, 2011 at 1:59 pm
It’s been a while since I’ve bothered reading conspiracy nut and religious fundamentalist blogs, so it was interesting having a quick dip back into a world of utter batshit craziness with Skeptifem’s blog.
As funny as the “Gender Traitor” stuff is, it was her “Choice Feminism” post that cracked me up. Especially her hand-wringing about her own heterosexuality, because having a “Nigel” is frowned upon as a moral failing in her feminist cult. You can’t be a top notch feminist unless you make the “political choice” to become a lesbian.
It’s just the same kind of guilt tripping about personal sexual preferences that certain other fundamentalist religions indulge in. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a radical feminist equivalent of “praying the gay away”.
Fundiefem would certainly be a more appropriate name for her.
October 1, 2011 at 2:27 am
[…] really is the final mark of a loser when you begin squealing about intimidation and right of speech in defense of the most heavily censoring, dissent controlling, slanderous, […]
October 19, 2011 at 6:11 am
[…] The Watson Circus – Their Kampf (greylining.wordpress.com) […]