Elevatorgate: “Never Forget” commemorative t-shirts sell out in 24 hours

What an amazing deal for lucky buyers who were able to snatch these up! In addition to t-shirts emblazoned with the above logo — also available as lady’s tank tops and raglans — people who placed the first 500 orders received a year’s subscription to Watsonian, tickets to the summer 2014 Watsonfest, and a copy of the Richard Dawkins biography, An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist, defaced and signed by Rebecca Watson. We’re told they still smell like lighter fluid and Watson’s fecal matter, which clever collectors may want to preserve with airtight display cases. Take a whiff every time a cisgender, patriarchal piece of shit has the gall to pollute the internet with their misinformed retardism!

More comfortable and effective than a chastity belt by far.

What do Rebecca Watson’s critics have in common?

When you operate the internet’s leading fan site for THE face of the skeptic community, you tend to get a lot of reader mail — most of it adoring, but quite a bit of it sexist, misogynistic, angry and bitter. Oftentimes, these correspondents want the Rebecca Watson Fan Club to answer for perceived slights Rebecca allegedly committed against them.

First of all, we wouldn’t dare speak for Rebecca herself, nor do we feel the need to respond to most complaints that come our way. That’s because not every 11th-rate blogger or Twitter nobody with a petty grievance deserves a response, and doubtless some people don’t realize Rebecca simply doesn’t have time for them. Sometimes, however, it’s in the best interests of everyone — Watsonistas, the wider atheist community, feminism as a movement — to dispel ugly rumors about Rebecca Watson and set the record straight.

That’s the case with this latest bit of fan mail from reader womenarecuntsmenrule@gmail.com:

“One of the first things budding young skeptics learn is to spot and avoid ad hominem attacks. We teach that attacking someone’s traits or misdeeds is a fallacious approach, and that a position should be argued head-on. It’s basic reasoning. So why wasn’t there an outcry when Rebecca Watson tried to discredit one of her critics by pointing out that he’s registered as a sex offender in North Carolina? I’m certainly not downplaying the seriousness of the offense, but isn’t that a classic ad hominem? How can a supposed skeptic leader get away with this?”

(The correspondent is referring to Drama 461 from Aug. 16, 2013, when Watson outed critic Cecil Fuson as a sex offender on her blog, posting a mugshot of Fuson as well as a link to a confirmation and summary of his offense.)

We Googled womenarecuntsmenrule@gmail.com’s email address upon receipt of his fan mail, and weren’t surprised in the least to learn he’s a divorced, probably balding father of two who frequently posts on websites that support societal patriarchy and white male privilege. He’s also likely overweight, with a browser cache populated by porn sites featuring girls not much older than his daughter. We’re not saying that’s a fact, just that it’s something you should consider when weighing this man’s claims.

EZ PZ hard-on squeezy. Fucking hawt.

Of course, his accusations against Rebecca Watson are familiar, and they’ve been discredited in the past by people who simply applied rational thinking. In July, a Canadian woman and self-described feminist named Katie wrote a disgusting blog post about Rebecca Watson, calling her “a cyber bully” whose “minions” “jump on you and eat you alive” if you disagree with Rebecca. (Drama 398, July 2013.)

“As an academic I value freedom of speech, good & rich discussions and logical conclusions; this is rarely found on the skepchick network,” the confused young Canadian wrote. “I don’t value hypocritical crap.”

Yawn. It’s the same claim misogynist Ben Radford made when Rebecca took him to task over a patriarch-centric article he wrote for the Center for Inquiry (Drama 356, December 2012), thematically similar to arguments made by CFI president Ronald A. Lindsay (Drama 367, May 2013), and by misogynistic Redditors (Drama 352, March 2013), as well as DragonCon supporters (Drama 706, September 2013.)

Yet ALL of Watson’s critics are writing from positions of privilege, passing judgment on Rebecca like George Zimmerman did to Trayvon Martin, with blogs instead of guns. Is it coincidence that all of the aforementioned critics are white men, with the exception of Katie, a white woman? Is it really that outlandish to point out that Ronald A. Lindsay is the white male president of an important institution, and it would be in his best interests to discredit strong female voices in the skeptic community?

And is it really a surprise that the privileged would fear a rising star like Watson, terrified she might knock them off their precariously patriarchal perches? No, womenarecuntsmenrule@gmail.com, this has nothing to do with alleged ad hominems, and everything to do with an establishment and power structure that’s been shaken to the core by Rebecca Watson.

Rebecca Watson vs Stef McGraw: Backbiting From the Depths of Obscurity

How well do any of us know Rebecca Watson?

This isn’t a mystique-building exercise or a trick question, nor do we need remind our readers of the millions who have apprenticed themselves to The Greatest Skeptical Mind of our generation.

It’s a genuine question. We count ourselves among the legions of Rebecca loyalists, we rush to Youtube every time Rebecca posts a new vlog, and we hold our collective breath during SGU, waiting for the moment when Steven Novella will finally shut the fuck up, drop the pretense, and hand the show over to the woman everyone wants to hear.

But really, how many of us can claim we know what it’s like to be Rebecca Watson? We skeptics are undoubtedly more considerate and empathetic, but could we ever know what it’s like to be the center of attention? The annoyance of being recognized in public? The creepy gaze of sexualizing men? The frustration of imparting knowledge to the retarded masses?

None of us have experienced a coattail-rider emerging from the murk of obscurity to nip at us in a misguided attempt to get attention.

Would you want this man's creepy sexualizing gaze sweeping over your body?

These are realities faced by Rebecca Watson every day, significant concerns piled on to a list that already includes worries about anti-rape footwear and the efficacy of discount pepper spray.

Simply put, when you have to contend with sleazy men constantly sexualizing you, it sucks to wake up every day to the jealousy and backbiting of lesser minds hatching ill-conceived plots to syphon your hard-earned fame. It must especially suck when you loathe drama, yet catty little college bitches won’t stop nipping at you.

And so it becomes clear why Rebecca Watson was curt and weary when she dismissed Stef McGraw, an unimportant blogger who bit off more than she could chew with her sloppy criticism of Ms. Watson. Viewed through the lens of a giant of the movement, it’s evident McGraw was just another tiresome leech with laughable blog traffic and all of 23 Twitter followers to speak of. (Rebecca has 17,461, more than twice the amount of people who follow Michio Kaku and Jim Parsons combined.)

In truth, Watson shouldn’t have dignified McGraw with a response. As diehard loyalists, we agree with those in the Watsonian Subculture who believe Rebecca gave this obscure nobody a gift by acknowledging her existence. The poor girl’s blog was probably Slashdotted from the millions of readers following the link from Skepchick.

But far be it from us to criticize Rebecca, because we’re well aware of the consequences. And that’s, ultimately, why McGraw’s ploy backfired. In a year, Rebecca Watson will vault to new heights, and McGraw’s 15 minutes will be a distant memory.

Lesson learned: You don’t fucks with Rebecca Watson.