There’s someone on the Internet that has set up a defense fund for Michael Shermer.
First, Mr. Shermer doesn’t need a “defense” fund, because if there’s a court case, Mr. Sheerer would be the plaintiff, not the defendant. At this point as well, as far as I know he has not asked for any help in his legal expenses. No one knows if this case will ever go to court so I think the project to raise funds for him is a little premature.
That’s not the point of this post though. It really has to do with a single statement made by this blogger:
I happen to find myself on the opposite side, having heard and experienced too much behind the scenes to believe in Shermer’s innocence, but I don’t begrudge those without that knowledge for wanting fair legal representation of Shermer.
Does this remind anyone of anything? Recall after the infamous Elevatorgate incident when several feminist bloggers wrote about a list they had, and passed around to one another, of conference speakers (men) whom they considered sexual harassers and worse? I’m not providing links to those blogs here, because I really don’t have the energy to go back two years through several blogs and find the references. I’m just hoping that at least some of you might recall that this happened.
What was important to me back then was that there was this secret list, that it appeared only the in-crowd had available.
You remember reading about the sect in early Christianity referred to as the Gnostics, right? Recall they claimed to have secret knowledge passed down to them and only to them. Sound familiar?
It seems now that there is a group of special feminists that know (having heard) and experienced(personally?) things behind the scenes. So what are these things that you claim to know about and have experienced?
Nothing more is said because, well, in order to know that, we would have to be indoctrinated into their sect of feminism.
It’s easy to make claims like this though without repercussions because you can always say that you’re protecting the victims. Or is it because you only have anecdotal evidence, from a second or even third party?
If sexual harassment is so rampant at secular conferences, why is it that no one will step up and publish the list of “known” harassers? This blogger goes on to say that:
Yes, a lot of “FTB feminists” have set their sights on skepticism and atheism in general, because we’re part of those movements and care deeply about making them better.
Well, if you’re all about making atheism and skepticism better, wouldn’t it be in the interest of these movements to know of people that should be avoided, or even better, not invited to conferences?
In my opinion, this is nothing more than a campaign to purge people from the “movement” that happen to hold a different view on feminism.
Exit question: Wouldn’t it be interesting if some of these women with this secret knowledge were deposed under oath if a case ever came to court?