I'll taking one more stab at this, RL.
Nobody in this thread, yes that includes me, is insinuating, out right saying or alluding to ANY of the assumptions you've made. Nobody. I don't think women should be silenced. I don't think women should be raped. I don't think sexism is ok. I don't think misogyny is ok. I think women being told they should be raped is misogyny. Nobody has said otherwise.
Now, I could go back point for point and address all of your assumptions and mis characterizations. Why would I? I didn't say what your assuming and I'm not going to answer falicious assumptions. You've attempted to paint me into a corner by reading a whole lot into what I actually said, then demand answers ("debate") based on your biases. I'm simplify not going to do that. A couple of times I've tried to refocus you onto my original response, personally to you, and you've simply ignored it and continued on with your straw man arguments. Yes, it's the fallacy of the day. Others have offered very reasoned responses that expanded the conversation and you ignored those posts too and went right back to your original talking point.
So, again, my original response was written to you before you responded to me. Based on that, contained in this very thread, one of two things is possible a) my response to you was completely genuine and very illustrative of how I think internally or b) it was all a setup and I didn't mean any of it. Which do you think it is? My suspicion is you'll continue to ignore anything that doesn't comport to your assumptions. After all. If you conceded the obvious, that brings into question your other responses. Meaning you overreacted to my post and made some (IMO) sweeping assumptions. Not that you shouldn't offer your opinion, speak, be heard, etc, etc, etc, etc. If its "a", i think its fair to say you have made huge, sweeping generalizations about what you think I was trying to say. If it's "b", why would I continue to respond to you? Because I'm an oppressive, sexist pig? Wouldn't I have said something sexist and derogatory and simply dismissed you? Isn't the fact that I continue to engage you and help you understand what I'm actually saying evidence I value your thoughts and opinions?
ETA: I'm also not going to speak for men who have said or attempted to do nasty things to you. I'm not them and I won't be lumped into the same category.
Your response to ActionSquid when she was trying to gauge misogyny in the skeptic community was to say:
Having said that, what a pile of poop! Your entire premise is false and an attempt up smear skeptics. Please. Everywhere you used the word skeptics, insert conspiracy theorists and everywhere you used the word misogyny insert paranoid schizophrenic.
Do you identify yourself as psychotic? If not, why not?
See what I did there?
ETA: let's say your premise isn't false; it's completely true. That is, skeptics are, to a one, sexist pigs. Does that change true believers' lack of actual evidence?
So, you painted her with the Very Large Brush you keep accusing others of using. Not content to simply ridicule a fairly new poster for daring to speak her concerns about misogyny among so-called skeptics, you decided to keep digging, saying that the woman whose experiences were in the Slate column may well be lying or crazy - entirely because she's a woman:
I read and re-read the Slate article three times to make sure I wasn't misreading or forming knee-jerk responses.
A couple of thoughts:
1). Why do we believe her? Sorry, just because she's a she doesn't earn special dispensation
2). What are the other sides of her stories, if any?
3). She mentions receiving hate mail/messages from a forum deducted to hating female skeptics. Do you really believe there is a forum by skeptics, hating other skeptics? I'm guessing the hate is/was coming from conspiracy types, not skeptics
4). What she refers to as sexism imply isn't. It's ham-fisted, crude, distasteful and totally uncalled for. A crappy pick-up attempt, sexism isn't.
5). Am I the only one who feels her brand of sexism is central to her very existence? She seems very preoccupied with others' interest in her. What I mean is, she was sitting at a bar, at a skeptics event, talking about "sexism" of skeptics? Really?
6). She wanted and sought out special treatment from event organizers to comfort her concerning "sexism" at an event focusing on skepticism? Is she not a grown adult? Take appropriate action. Call out the offenders, call the police, leave; whatever is needed. No, this doesn't excuse whatever offensive behavior she's upset about.
7). Dawkin's response to her either means he's a) a crude pig, or b) she spends a lot of time on gender "issues" where there isn't any and it's quite tiresome.
8). I've had plenty of women express hateful, disgusting sentiments to me over my thoughts on message boards. Is that "sexism" too?
Getting hit on my unsophisticated geeks isn't sexism. Me claiming (and I don't!!!) the the lovely and talented RenaissanceLady has nothing valuable to say because she's a woman, is. My suspicion is she has issues with men that run far deeper than sexism.
In a previous thread, I answered this point, by point. by point. I explained that many of us (at least thousands of us) watched this unfold online, so we KNOW she'll telling the truth about the rape threats.
Meanwhile, you have yet to explain your knee-jerk reaction that she shouldn't be believed, or why you think we automatically believe her "because she's a she."
Then, after I answered each of your points and explained who this woman was, where we had seen these threats, that she had her own site on which she received even more threat, why rape threats and being overtly sexualized is a form of sexism and much more, you responded:
Sigh.
Another translation:
1). How dare you disagree with me! I'm a woman and we ALWAYS have the correct view point
2). You disagree with me?!!! You're one of THEM and I'll do my best to shut you up with straw man arguments!!!
Basically, I'm entitled to my opinions, as I see it, without being falsely labeled.
Gotcha.
Score thus far:
1. You ridicule a new, female poster who spoke who concerns and asked genuine questions.
2. You go onto assume, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that that the only reason we females believe this woman's story due to some chick-solidarity (This doesn't speak highly of your views toward women. It also shows, in spades, why women don't speak out or even come forward after being raped.)
3. You counter my answering you point by point by saying, again, that because I'm a woman, I must always be correct. You also accuse me of making "straw man arguments" because I answered you directly to each point you made. (Speaking of straw man arguments, you accused me of cyber-stalking your daughter, even though I had made the analogy of Rebecca Watson of being someone's daughter before you ever entered the conversation - and then YOU started discussing your own daughter in terms of this story.)
4. Your conclusion about this story, even though it's been repeatedly shown Rebecca Watson was threatened in front of countless witnesses, was to say that she "has issues with men" but then whine about how you're not saying that "women should be silenced."
What are you doing, then, if not silencing women? Read again, the four points I made above. The very first thing you did is ridicule a woman for daring to ask about sexism and misogyny. You then continue by saying that the women believe these stories is entirely because we're women and assume all women must be honest. You conclude by saying if a woman has an objection to rape threats, she has "issues with men."
The honest truth is, if this debate were still occurring last night, I'd assume you were drunk posting and you just didn't know or remember your own words. Now it's the next day and.... You still don't seem to know or care what you've actually said. I find that incredible.
I'd also like to point out that I'm the only person on here who has answered each point and question. The ultimate "straw man" argument is to accuse others of making "straw man" arguments without engaging in actual, pointed debate. I've been doing my best to engage in actual discourse, using your own exact quotes to make my case and backing many of my points with actual research. You're still throwing mud, hoping something will stick - while not bothering to debate me on each of the points I make, nor bothering to answer the specific questions I have asked and keep asking.
One final point that you keep missing: (UFOlogy, you'll also want to read this.)
To disagree with a woman is neither sexist nor misogynist.
To question some aspects of a woman's story is neither sexist nor misogynist.
To insist that the reason women agree with another woman's story is entirely due to the fact that we're women is the height of sexism and misogyny. It assumes we cannot objectively look at the facts behind the story, even when those facts were witnessed by countless people.
To assume we believe that we must "ALWAYS have the correct point of view" because we're women is unbelievably sexist and misogynist. Such a statement discounts women's experiences in their entirety, even when proof of what they are saying is bountiful.
! But you have to know that there is a "however" coming too. While the spirit of what you are saying applies to many things, we cannot ignore the fact that there are certain differences between the genders based on a variety of social, psychological, and physical processes that are either beyond our control as individuals or are perfectly natural. Heterosexual humans naturally react to the opposite sex very much differently than to the same sex, and it's not simply a subtle mind based thing. Entire body chemistry is involved that sometimes leads to intimacy and lifelong attachments. It's important for us not to psychologically repress these instincts or it can lead to some serious problems because they will just find another way out down the line. It's far better ( within bounds ) to recognize them, take the risks, and work the magic. And nobody said it would be easy.