I’m so sick of this “community infighting.” I can’t listen to an atheist podcast nowadays without hearing about the latest accusation of sexism or rape within “the community.” I’m here for the philosophy and discussion of atheism and theism, not about feminism, racism, or any other “-ism.” I don’t give a crap about social dynamics between atheists. I get enough shit about feminism from CNN.

I’m going to have to go back to reading philosophy to get my kicks, I guess…

Like politics in general, movement atheist is split along certain philosophical lines. I for one am fine with it. I have long thought that the right has had an disproportionate amount of influence in both movement atheism and movement skepticism.

How many times has a celebrity in either movement come out in favor of free market fundamentalism?

I agree that sexism, racism, etc. exist in all social communities, I’m gay and don’t get me started on the horrible sexism and racism that happens there, I’m also an Atheist. Having a conversation about the issues is good. Expounding on allegations and gossip is not productive. There needs to be equal footing to the issue. Yes, rape or taking advantage of someone wasted/fanboy/girl is wrong, I also think that the conversation needs to include the topic of “how to be safe at cons”. Half the battle is context of situation and awareness of self. Robyn, you were self aware enough to remove yourself from a situation that could have gotten gross at a con. Good for you. Where is the education on how to do this? Likewise, where is the education to not rape/sleep with non-conscenting drunk girls. Rather than talk about victim or alleged offenders, lets get in front and do some proactive work rather than berate listeners with the plight of the American Feminist.

Is it possible for a woman to rape a man? Should a sober woman who sleeps with a man who has been drinking be considered a rapist? What if the man clearly wanted to have sex and instigated the encounter? If he regrets it the next morning because he was married, can he claim rape as a defense?

You must have edited show 97 before Mr. Deity, Brian Keith Dalton, released his video, “Did I Blame the Victim?” He did so on August 17 and I think makes it pretty clear that this was not his intention. Please watch that video. I am interested to hear what Robin thinks. Again, in my opinion, I think she overreacted. To call the begging segment of Mr. Deity and the Hat the worst thing you ever saw is hyperbole at best, or batshit crazy at worst. There is probably a chance for discussion here, but extreme, self-righteous condemnation is not the correct way to go about it.

Let’s suppose for a moment that Robin’s fallacious statistic, that only a tiny fraction of rape allegations are false, is valid.
Her logic was as follows:
1 - Only a tiny fraction of rape allegations are false.
2 - Michael Shermer was accused of rape
Therefore, Michael Shermer raped that woman.

If that logically followed, then nothing in the minority would exist. Time to go back and review the philosophy of logic. Only a tiny fraction of felines are tigers and the majority of felines are house cats, so tigers don’t exist. Totally follows, right?

The statistic that Robin cites, oh wait DOESN’T give a citation for, is much more complicated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape This entry lays it out rather neatly and actually has sources for its numbers.

What frustrated me the most about this podcast was the anti-skeptical attitude that Robin adopted and the complete dismissal of personal responsibility in this hypothetical situation. Her rant completely demonized Michael Shermer based on absolutely ZERO evidence! Extrordinary claims, right? Except when it involves a charge from a woman against a man, right? That’s not feminism. To automatically side with a women inspite of the lack of evidence for claims made does not make you a feminist. At best it makes you incredulous, and at worst it makes you a misandrist. This woman is credible because PZ Meyers, a person who has a history of personal attacks against Shermer, says she is? If you take that as fact, then I have ocean from property in Oklahoma to sell you.

Now, before I am unfairly labeled as anti-woman, which would be hysterical (yep, using the word on purpose), I am sympathetic to victims of violence of any kind - of any gender. However, claiming that because someone had a few too many, slept with someone, then regretted it in the morning is over reaching. If the new definition of rape is sex while intoxicated, then I guess my husband and I are guilty of raping each other. Nobody is saying, “She’s asking to be raped!!!,” I’m saying that if this is a valid complaint, she was not blameless. I don’t like to do dumb things, so I abstain from mind altering substances. If I get drunk and sleep with someone I regret sleeping with, that is MY fault. I am the only one who can put myself into that situation. I can’t blame the person I slept with or accuse them of rape because I made the choice to inhibit my better judgement. Also, not every drunk acts drunk (please see alcoholic blackouts or functioning alcoholic) so why put the onus on the other party to determine who is too intoxicated?

These claims are dubious. If she felt violated, why not go to the police? Why is this only coming out now AFTER the statute of limitations. Also, the statute of limitations on rape is lengthy
http://www.relieffundforsexualassaultvictims.org/resources/statutesoflimitationcrim-D.pdf

Let’s not forget Carl Sagan’s baloney kit! This came 2nd or 3rd hand THROUGH AN EMAIL, the POSTED ON A BLOG. This is not a police report. If I posted on my blog that I witnessed cold fusion, but I the researchers aren’t coming out themselves, but it’s cool guys because I totally vet them, would you believe me? Do you believe NaturalNews?! You guys made an excellent point at the top of the show: Not all atheists are skeptics or critical thinkers.

Steer clear of the GOSSIP, because unless there’s evidence, you’re just cranking the rumour mill. I tune in because I want to hear about atheist related legislation, how science is pushing back against creationism, etc. American Atheists erected a humanist monument in Florida and were given a donation to do the same in all 50 states. I don’t recall hearing that on the podcast. It was also vandalized, and they caught the vandal because he bragged on Facebook. Why isn’t that being covered? How about an Oklahoma restaurant screwing over a group of humanists trying to raise money for Camp Quest Oklahoma? Quit wasting your time with “industry” gossip. I’m not an atheist because I love Michael Shermer, or Dawkins, or PZ Meyers, and I would be an atheist without them. Please stick to the issues.

My comment has disappeared. I thought this was a discussion section…..

@Hailey Our system held your comment for moderation based on an algorithm for catching spam - probably due to the length. I’ve since approved it.

One of the criticisms we frequently hear from theists is that because atheists have no god they therefore have no morals or least no basis for morals. This of course is a troupe but I sometimes wonder if there are those who are attracted to atheism for it’s absence of ostensible moral constraint. Because atheism has no formal set of moral codes does this make the issue of sexism or racism moot for a segment of this community? After all, atheism in short, is non belief in an all powerful deity from which we were created it doesn’t presuppose any other beliefs or non beliefs. I’m sure there are many philosophers and writers who one can quote that fill out a more elaborate, maybe even formal value system but doesn’t the void here contribute in some sense to amoral attitude expressed by many in the community toward the problems that afflict society and this group? I say this as an atheist myself.

Just to respond to two things that have come up in this thread a lot, and then I’ll leave the rest because it mostly sounds like people who have already made up their mind:

On my response to the Mr. Deity video: I had the response I did (“one of the worst things I’ve ever seen”) because I did not expect it from him. I’ve obviously seen much worse in my time; I’m an historian, after all. But what I meant is that this hit me rather hard, because it felt so close. I didn’t see it coming. If he has since corrected himself and apologized since then, I appreciate that.

On there not being “any evidence”: There is evidence. There has long been reports about the behavior of Shermer and others at conferences and of course, if you consider this merely “gossip,” then nothing I can say can convince you otherwise. If you do not think the rarity of rape allegations should at least weigh heavily in an evaluation; again, we then have different ideas about how to weigh evidence. Also, what is your standard for what counts as evidence? A videotape? A semen sample? For reasons that anyone really interested in rape should educate themselves about, these are actually very rare in the vast majority of rape cases.

The comment asking why she did not go to the police is ignorant in the extreme. This speaks to a lack of awareness, again, about how social power operates through shame, fear, and self-blame. But apparently the same commenter thinks she *should* have blamed herself so, this is, at least, consistent.

And clarifying point: by rape cases, I do not mean merely ones that are reported to the police, go to court, etc, but cases in the broader sense; ie, incidents of rape that occur — about half of all rape incidents are never reported to the police.

http://www.rainn.org/statistics

And for those interested in the question of what is or is not rape: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/was-it-rape

And for where I got my statements on the rarity of false accusations, which actually I oversimplified to make them seem more common that this study (which I think trumps Wikipedia), see here:

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/the_voice_vol_3_no_1_2009.pdf

I love the show, and this is one of my favorite podcasts, but the end part of this episode was tough. I come to this podcast to listen to atheism related issues and I really don’t see how this was one. And I don’t mean to sound like a “anti-feminist” because I consider myself a feminist and am more just apathetic, this has to do with the context of this podcast and I just don’t think this is appropriate for this particular show. I love everything that this podcast does week after week with this being the only exception. I don’t think this should be discussed in this podcast, but should be dealt with by the authorities.

That position is very hard for me to understand, Jerry. How can you be apathetic about people in the community being harmed? If you do not believe the allegations, then that is one thing; but then you would consider Shermer and other men accused of harassment as being harmed, no?

Ideas do not take place in a vacuum. They take place in a social context and they are tied to that social context. It seems to me that to want to only look at the ideas and not the people, events, and lives that make them and participate in them is to blunt our understanding and, our reason for caring about the ideas in the first place.

I missed the part where I claimed Wikipedia to be the highest standard of anything. Rather, I merely stated that it showed rape statistic reporting to be a complex issue and that there is a great deal of continuity issues in recording, reporting, classifying, etc. I’m not wrong there. There is no golden spike, so when you say, “We’ll, only X% are actually false,” you are doing so without evidence.

As for evidence to the claim, evidence is most certainly NOT an unverified 2nd/3rd hand account from a blog. That is gossip. That is tabloid. What you’re engaging in is tabloid gossip. It’s not ignorant for me to say, “If you feel like you were violated, seek justice, seek help.” What is the right thing? Should we automatically fry the alleged in the court of public opinion? Tawana Brawley, anyone? How about those kids from Duke? Those Duke Lacrosse players surely deserved to have their lives ruined, right? What often counts for evidence in rape allegations is victim corroboration, and, yes, some times physical evidence like semen, vaginal tearing, blood alcohol testing, etc.

I call for personal responsibility in every situation from driving, to behavior, to consumption of food/drug/drink/etc. I guess that translates into me blaming this “victim”? I’m not sure how, “Don’t purposefully ingest things that inhibit your better judgement” translates into, “You deserved that rapin’”, but then again, that’s not my mindset.

Also, the “X% of rapes aren’t even reported” is about as credible as, “X% of vaccine injuries/adverse reactions are never reported”.

Rape is a serious issue, and so are false allegations. This stunt that PZ Myers is pulling by putting this allegation on his blog is hurting real victims. Yeah, real victims, because there is no way of verifying that this is an allegation being made by a real person. I am sorry if you disagree, but the better outcome would have been urging the alleged victim to seek counseling from a qualified professional. Anything else is unethical.

I’m not part of the Atheist community” I don’t go to any of these shows, this name mentioned that I am most aware of is P. Z. and thats only because Iv’e herd him mentioned on the Atheist Experience during some fund raiser competition. It’s not that I’m some sort of antisocial personality who doesn’t care about people, I simply don’t care about these people. And I don’t think this is the right venue for this sort of discussion as this is only related to atheism because the people involved are atheist, I could understand this being discussed on the Godless Bitches being that they are a feminist podcast. I’m not saying that anyone is guilty or innocent.

I know these are some hot topics but I want to thank everyone for leaving their honest feedback — we really listen. We’ve gotten a number of emails and suggestions about what listeners want and don’t want. Thank you for the feedback and please keep bringing it. Most of your feedback makes our effort feel worthwhile.

@Hailey We mentioned the humanist monument on a previous podcast (I’ll try to find the segment). I believe that Chris Lazare also made a post about it on here.

I think it is interesting that some people have commented that the only topic that they care to be discussed on this podcast is atheism. We have covered many other topics in the past, such as skepticism, humanism, astrology, and my numerous posts debunking different forms of ancient Chinese medicine. We don’t ever get comments or emails telling us we are off topic when discussing these other subjects. I wonder why.

I think being silent on the subject of feminism and sexual harassment in the atheist community is wrong. If half of the movement is being turned off to conferences and don’t feel safe attending major atheist events, that is a problem. That is a major problem, and I think that many atheist’s call to simply not talk about these issues is divisive and is a big part of the ongoing problem. These things need to be talked about if it’s ever going to get better.

I understand that you guys (the podcasters) go to events, cons, etc. I actually did appreciate when Robin shared her personal experiences being a woman there. I, personally, do care about feminist issues and I appreciate them getting air time. However, I don’t want to hear about gossip and hanky panky at cons. If you want to talk about Rebecca Watson and the elevator incident, great, go for it. Watson speaks candidly about this event and we can verify that Rebecca is a person and the event took place. If you want to talk about how to modify behavior at cons, that sounds constructive to me.
Personally, I don’t really care about cons. They appear, to me, to be a self congratulatory ego-fests where people who don’t believe in the supernatural talk an awful lot about the super natural. I won’t begrudge you sharing your experience as a participant, attendee, etc, because to some people they are a worthwhile event.

@Tom I looked back at past episodes and did see that you guys covered the atheist monument. I stand corrected there.

I really like the podcast and do appreciate it when topics that challenge my view are explored. However, as a skeptic I have to draw the line when no evidence is provided to support a claim.

Looking forward to the next episode. I wish the episodes were more frequent.

@Colin, You’re right you guys shouldn’t limit your topic list. I think my main issue is that this is news because one of the people involved is a “celebrity” in the community, and it feels a bit too voyeuristic. I really like Robins opinions of the issue as a whole, but i just don’t like the celebrity aspect of it.

I wanted to respond to this issue of whether rape allegations, and the cluster of other reported incidents that, in this case, surround them, are evidence or gossip - but, other people have done it so well that I will just point you to those links if you are interested:

“Harassment, Rape, and the Difference Between Skepticism and Denialism”: http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/page/2/

And on the difference between “Anonymous” and “unnamed” sources: http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/08/20/anonymous-vs-unnamed-deep-throat/

It is also important to keep in mind that with Shermer, there are several *known* sources (ie, people who have not kept their identity hidden) reporting similar behavior which, on its own, does not add up to a legal case (which no one is pursuing) for a particular allegation, but does show a pattern which, I think, makes no sense to completely disregard. For a list of these reports on Shermer and others, see:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2013/08/12/sexual-harassment-accusations-in-the-skeptical-and-secular-communities-a-timeline-of-major-events/

I love the discussion here. Being myself gay and Atheist, I think in regard to this particular issue, it’s better to zoom the microscope out, rather than in at particular allegations, “celebrities”, gossip, etc.

The reason I say this is because the minority community of Atheists is exactly like the gay community, in that, while we are all connected by the broader umbrella issue, e.g. Atheist, LGBT rights, we have huge divides within the minority culture that are at competing interest.

There is no question that within the gay community, there is a divide between gay men and lesbians. Why? Because gay men could give a shit less about feminist/sexism issues because those issues have absolutely zero impact on the lives of gay men. But being gay and being a woman packs a double whammy of minority rights and issues directly involved in their day to day lives. The same goes for racism in the gay community. It goes under the radar because the majority of white gay men in power within the community don’t experience racism and can therefore disregard it as an issue.

This directly translates to the Atheist community. White straight men who are Atheists are simply concerned with one thing. Being Atheist. That’s why they are at the cons, that’s why they speak out, etc. Not to say that some aren’t concerned or involved in LGBT rights or fighting sexism, but because racism/sexism isn’t a major player/concern in their lives, it’s simply easier to ignore.

So to me, the issue then becomes bigger and more important than some rape stats and some “industry” gossip. How do we educate and ensure that within our minority cultures we are educating and promoting equality on all level. How do we educate people on what sexism/rape is and how to practice safe habits when at cons, events, etc? Or gay rights issues or race issues?

Frankly, I’m surprised you don’t have a gay person on the show, or on any of the popular Atheist podcasts, when it seems to socially fall into a surprisingly similar par of experience.

Just to set the record straight, PZ has alleged that Shermer gets women intoxicated by always keeping their wine glass full. It is clear that Mr. Deity was directly responding to that accusation. Mr. Deity has never at anytime excused or rationalized sexual intercourse without consent or tried to the “blame the victim”.

It is clear to me that you guys were reading way too much into what he was saying. And I am frankly surprised you wouldn’t have tried to confirm his intent before hastily jumping to conclusions.

Hi Taylor. Actually, there was some victim blaming going on. Mr. Deity suggested that it is the woman’s fault for drinking too much and not knowing when too much is too much. He was absolutely suggesting that the woman should simply know better than putting herself in a position where she might be raped. He was focusing on the actions of the woman before she got raped instead of the actions of the man who raped her. Instead of telling women to not get too drunk, his message should have been scolding men who prey upon inebriated women. His focus on women here absolutely suggests that he holds the women wholly or partially to blame for being raped. And that is disgusting.

I want to second Colin here. I saw Mr. Deity’s second video, and it only improved my opinion of his behavior mildly. I am confused as to why he thinks that pointing out that he only meant to refer to this one case somehow mitigates the awfulness of his rhetoric. I always understood he was referring to this case — that was never a point I was confused on.

As Colin pointed out, I do not see how one can escape the implications of what he said. If he was not suggesting that this woman should not have gotten drunk, he’s suggesting…what? If not that that this woman should be held partly responsible for a man having sex with her without her consent, then what? What other point could this possibly make without some of the blame falling on the woman herself?

I know Dalton does not think that is the implication of his words, but sincerity is not the same thing as accuracy. I am glad that he went on to state, clearly and emphatically, that even if a woman is drunk/high, it is rape. It is unfortunate, however, that he does not see that his previous rhetoric did not contribute to that logic; it did the opposite.

When he went on to explain his opposition to sexism in the Mormon church, this cognitive dissonance of his made more sense. It seems that Dalton — as so much of the American population — only understands sexism (and racism) as matters of conscious, overtly embraced principles and ideas. He does not see them as a set of subconscious inclinations and prejudices, as assumptions so basic to the drinking water we do not even notice them. Consequently, because we are not self-critical enough, we contribute to things even when, intellectually, we oppose them.

Moreover, he never accounted for the nonsense about comparing rape allegations to McCarthyism — which was just as ugly — and he ended the video with a little textual reminder for us not to elevate this woman’s claims to the hallowed status of “evidence.” If this is Dalton’s idea of taking a tough stance against sexism, he is doing it wrong.

The second video made me alter my perspective on his first video, and Dalton himself, slightly — from someone who is contributing to sexism from an ugly, contemptuous place to someone who is contributing to sexism out of ignorance, naiveté, and a failure to recognize that sexism today is mostly a matter,*not* of Good People vs Bad People, or consciously held Bad Ideas, but unexamined assumptions that color so many facets of social life and social thought that to really see them clearly, we must constantly interrogate our own motivations, inclinations, and predilections. We are all sexist. We are all racist. (Myself included.) The only way forward is to reckon with this. But we’re all so busy insisting we are pure and not to blame, controversies like this stop being about the real injustices that have happened to people, and start being about everyone getting their egos bruised.

Correction: I was reading more commentary on Dalton’s second video, and realized — which was not clear to me from the video — that Mr. Deity was referencing a separate incident concerning Shermer, which did not involve rape. Now his disconnect between his words, and the consequence of them, makes slightly more sense.

That being said, I’m still not sure what his point is. The story involved is not one of Shermer asking her if she wanted more wine, but going ahead and refilling her glass, regardless of what she said. The point of the woman’s story, clearly, is that she is suggesting Shermer sees the benefit in getting a woman he is pursuing intoxicated. Whether or not, or to what degree, a woman fully consents to every drink and keeps track of all her drinks (and let’s be honest here folks; we’ve all accidentally had too much when we did not intend to) is beside the point. Because ultimately, the reason for all these stories being highlighted at this moment is because there is an allegation of rape on hand — so I do not know what Dalton intended by focusing on the behavior of this particular woman.

I really do think Dalton is just painfully clueless. He may have intended only to refer to this case, but can he imagine how that made all the other women out there, who have been raped in instances involving alcohol, feel? I can only imagine how many times they have been told, “well, you should not have drank so much…”

I feel like I’m invisible on this discussion thread.

so here,

Mr. Deity, Mr. Deity, Mr. Deity. Rape, drunk girls, allegation, rape and PZ.

I don’t know who Mr. Deity is. Obviously he’s a D-bag. We can continue being children arguing about D-list Atheism celebs or you can have a discussion about the larger issue.

I’m not sure arguing about interpretations of Mr. Deity’s opinions is helpful.

Just ask him and have him on the show ffs…

This discussion devolved quickly into a big word E-peen fest. /sigh

I’ve decided to close this comment thread.

I do appreciate the feedback we’ve had on both sides of the issue but the sexual assault topic is too delicate for a comment thread and would be much better suited in essay format.

If you do have something else you’d like to say on this topic or if you’d like to contribute an op ed piece, please feel free to use the Contact link above.