Gamer Grating

Shorter: Gamer-gate.

Below the fold is a  repost of a (attempted) comment I made to a post at a website touting the “Tracking and Mocking of the New Misogyny” in response to the backlash against the “women in gaming” coalition that seem determined to mislead a lazy and gullible US media into a distracting corner.

Meanwhile, women suffering honest-to-goodness violence and repression outside the rarified world of online gaming are the real victims.  Why are these hyper-sensitive new era flowers are so outraged about a tiny thorn in their toe while the serious violence against women is a much greater unresolved problem?  I dunno.  I guess I don’t think enough like a gamer girl to be able to figure this one out.  It looks like a whole lot of personal aggrandizement and manufactured victimhood for the most part.  Maybe I’m sensitized by the fact that it’s the same weak strategy they manufactured for use against the top men in the skeptic movement?  To wit:

Continue reading

Editorial Conundrum

More Power

I’m in a bit of an editorial quandary.  Last year I ran a pro-wind piece extolling the virtues of sustainable wind power.  I don’t claim any special expertise on the subject other than being surrounded by a sea of these devices here in the Umwelt-sensitive district of Munsterland.   That said, I am in extremely close proximity to these devices.  They’re everywhere.   My enthusiasm for the technology caught the attention of some anti-windfarm group because there’s been an attempt to inject some anti-wind propaganda into the comment thread on that piece.

I’ve never blocked or banned a comment on this blog that wasn’t outright spam.  I even let the haters and the trolls take their shots.  I am willing to risk the potential of PTSD because, as a Vietnam-era service member, I know that shell shock is a risk of battle.  It’s been that way for men as long as there have been men.  But I digress.  This is not about my particular sensitivity to criticism or inability to take as good an ad hominem homo-baiting as the best of the Tea Party ‘tards has to offer.  It’s about whether I give exposure to what I consider is a coordinated attempt at consumer misinformation and propaganda.

Part of me wants to expose the anti-wind shill/idiot(s) involved.  Another part of me is reluctant to give them any publicity at all.  It’s an editorial conundrum I’ve not encountered in the past.  I’ve reviewed the material and visited the websites of the links that were attempted to be placed in my comment section and find them to be total rubbish and some of the more transparent anti-wind FUD propaganda I’ve ever seen.

About the only crazy claim not being made by these lunatics is that the windmills are somehow dragging down the rotational speed of the the Earth.

Just to give you one example of something we’re all suppose to be deathly afraid of?  The possibility of an out-of-control fire in one of these generators!!  As if a relatively small fire once in a blue moon, on a tower a high up in the middle of a field somewhere is suppose to be more scary than global warming or nuclear accident?  Give me a break.  It’s insulting.

Even though it would be fun to deconstruct the rather transparent attempts at misdirecting the public discussion on renewable wind power generation, I am going to set it aside for now unless prodded to do otherwise by an overwhelming request from the masses.



Phantom Sexists of Skeptic Island

The attack on women’s rights has recently gone into overdrive. Hard won reproductive rights are under assault in the US, not to mention the indignities heaped upon women in the lesser developed parts of the globe.  I feel bad for the continuing abuses women are suffering, which is why I take offense to the ongoing feminist cry-babies, living in the relatively sheltered and pampered world of rationalism.

The actual raping and pillaging of the world’s women is hard to stomach, which is why I find it galling when women go to rationalist conventions and complain loudly afterwards how miserably sexually abused they were while attending same.  I thought the whole issue had “jumped the shark” back with the episode of “Skepchick and the Elevator Guy“, but the American Girlyban, like the people that program Survivor, figure there is at least one more season of good times to squeeze out of bikinis and beach sunsets, so here we go again.  Unlike on Survivor, the bad guy attacking the women in secularism is never identified, which makes it impossible to vote him off the island.  The women have a convenient male enemy to rally around, and the men who love them are powerless to help in the battle against the Phantom Sexists of Skeptic Island.

The latest episode in the ongoing assault on the delicate sensibilities of the American Girlyban was brought to my attention by a tweet from Matt Dillahunty:

I listen to Matt’s podcast from Austin.  He is an excellent speaker on behalf of rationalism and I recommend you take the time to check out his podcast.  Matt is sensitive to the plight of the American Girlyban, as is evidenced by his recent highlighting of this post from Stephanie Zvan, over at,(which is just drawing out the thoughts made in her original post on the subject of sexist skeptic males here.)

For me to simply brush aside the criticisms of Ms. Zvan without rationally examining them would be an anathema to the movement, so here we go:

I’m on my way home from CFI’s Women in Secularism conference. (emphasis mine)

Well if that doesn’t set the stage for you, I don’t know what would suffice.  Why the need for a separate (but conference for women in the first place?  No matter, I wonder what happened there.  Maybe Ms. Zvan will enlighten…

I’ll be talking more about the conference over the next few days. Right now, though, I’m going to talk about something that happened almost outside the conference.

Actual conference details must take a momentary back seat for more important considerations…

Jen McCreight mentioned that, when she started speaking at conferences, multiple people contacted her behind the scenes to tell her which male speakers she should steer clear of.

This is the just the kind of juicy gossip we send our women-folk off to secular conferences for, so bring it on ladies…

I had multiple conversations over multiple tables yesterday. It turns out I have a few things to say on the topic. So did other people, and you’ll find some of what they had to say here. You won’t find their names unless they let me know they want to claim their words.

Here we go again.  I am still in mourning for the soul crushing beat-down that Skepchick laid on that poor, unidentified elevator guy.  You know the one.  He’s the cheeky bastard that supposedly offered up coffee and a wink to Ms. Skepchick at a previous rationalist convention.  I like to think of it as the “Case of the Drooling Goober”, while Skepchick leans towards more ominous overtones.  In the final analysis, it really doesn’t matter in this conversation because like the case with Ms. Zvan, the protagonists are left shrouded in mystery.  They are therefore every bit as “real” as any of the imaginary Gods these women are protesting at their conventions (That is the point after all, isn’t it?)  The girls just want you to TAKE IT ON FAITH that they are under assault.  Guys apparently can’t see the assaults because they don’t have the mystery decoder stone for reading the Golden Tablets sensitivity.  Wading deeper into the morass;

Q: Do famous atheist speakers really act like assholes to women?

A: Yes.

Q: Really?!

A: I said, “Yes.” I’ve experienced some of it, in front of witnesses. I’ve talked to other women who’ve experienced it personally. I’ve talked to conference organizers who have strategies for minimizing the damage when they have to invite one of these men to one of their conferences.

The women must be pissed as hornets that they HAVE to invite these predatory bastards into their realm.  If not for the otherwise brilliant nature and educational acumen of the speakers involved, they just would not be able to tolerate it.  Fortunately, these women have a resource at their disposal to battle the evils of this rampant, yet unidentified scourge:

Nor do you have to do this on your own. The Geek Feminism Wiki has put together an excellent sample policy you can adapt to your event and your needs.

I have had my fill of the American Girlyban using unidentified straw men to fill the role of predatory male skeptics.  They have diverted the attention of the movement away from truly IMPORTANT issues into the realm of daytime soap opera.  It would be irresponsible for me not to speculate that the reason they got ran out of the early church is that they were probably exhibiting the same behaviors back then.

Update on the early aftermath of my open observations on the continuing usurpation of the rationalist movement by the American Girlyban.  One guy tweeted me a link that I am sure he thinks will open my eyes to the plight of these helpless women.  Here’s the best part of it to save you all the anguish of wading through the pity party.  The author is an individual only identified as Jan (again on

“Why don’t you just publish a list of names?” you ask. If only it were that easy.

It really is that easy, but please do go on and explain how seriously difficult the situation becomes when you have to ground it in reality.

Imagine what would happen if I published a list of names based on hearsay alone. I don’t have video evidence. I don’t even have personal experience – people now know I’m a loud mouth blogger, which makes me a terrible target.

What makes you an incredible target is not being a loud mouthed blogger.  It is public examination and ridicule of some of the great men of science and skepticism, being anonymously slandered and all suffering by association.  You have, by your own admission, NO tangible evidence.  Evidence had always been paramount to skeptics and rationalists before the infiltration of the Girlyban movement into the organization.

Even though I trust my friends to be truthful, and patterns of bad behavior make the hearsay convincing, it’s an easy target for skeptics. There’d be a flood of accusations that people are lying or oversensitive.

Which, most humorously to me, is EXACTLY the kind of “evidence” that these so-called rationalist women are going to have to debate when arguing against religious dogma.  “God must be real because me and all my friends at Jeebus University wouldn’t lie about such a thing”

Not only that, but I fear the consequences. Look at what happened to Rebecca Watson when she simply said “guys, don’t do that” about an anonymous conference attendee.

No responsible loud mouthed Girlyban blogger can write a screed this detached without naming Rebecca Watson, aka Skepchick, aka Mullah Mad Momma.  Is she still hiding out with Salmon Rushdie?  As Dr. Smith used to feign on Lost in Space…Oh the pain…Oh the pain…

So Jan fears for the consequences of making public accusations against anonymous male conference attendees SO MUCH that she just can’t resist the temptation to do THE SAME DAM THING HERSELF!!