Good points, but I disagree. As I said, my knowledge of this may be faulty, but as I understand it:

1) Rebecca had been discussing sexism in atheism
2) Stef’s podcast (posted on her organisation’s site) was incredibly dismissive about Rebecca’s statements and her discussion of sexism
3) The seminar was about supporting women and making the atheist community a more welcoming place for us

I don’t think you can separate that out, especially if the conference was based on mentoring. Rebecca had been talking about a subject of great concern to a number of women, and Stef used an official platform to tear that down. Rebecca used an official platform to reopen that topic and explain why she felt it was inappropriate to try and shut down a discussion about sexism.

If it was entirely personal, I think my opinion might be different. However, this wasn’t personal – Rebecca was standing up to an atheist organisation leader (albeit a student one) who was contributing to making atheism a ‘chilly’ place for women. She did so publicly as a voice for women who had no way to speak up.

I respect that.

Going off that, I can see why Ms. Watson’s chosen method of rebuking Ms. McGraw can be seen as inappropriate. For starters, criticizing someone in front of all their peers is likely to create a sense of shame and even resentment in the person being criticized. Doubly so if you don’t expect it or don’t see yourself as having failed.

A mentor who’s seeking to educate or correct should be mindful of how their criticism is likely to be received. They aren’t speaking to a group (say Republicans) or to someone actively trying to undermine them. They are speaking one on one to someone (often) willing to learn and be corrected but still very much capable of feeling humiliated, hurt or as if whatever trust they had is broken.

It’s also why when mentoring it’s important to give the mentee a chance to voice their opinion and objections in an environment where they feel such objections would be welcomed. Obviously a Q&A would not be that kind of an environment. There’s already a million and one reasons someone would not feel comfortable arguing when singled out from the group they are in.

So Ms. Watson, if we believe she was acting as a mentor during that event, should have kept the discussion at a personal level even if only to avoid unnecessarily causing Ms. McGraw to feel singled out in the crowd (which you could argue is one of the responsibilities of someone acting as a mentor).

Anyway, that’s just my thinking as to why what Ms. Watson can seen as wrong. Am I off base or in the wrong ballpark here?

Yes, there was a power differential, but Rebecca was addressing the actual subject of the seminar…and Stef had the chance to rebut her in front of the same audience. Rebecca did not insult, demean, or belittle Stef personally – she addressed Stef’s ideas on the subject at hand.

Richard belittled and insulted Rebecca personally, on a third party’s blog. For no reason. He was not involved in any of the events, he was not attending a seminar on the subject, he was not involved in trying to address a major topic of concern – he randomly reached out with language intended to cut Rebecca into pieces, and his fanboys cheered him on.

I don’t see these situations as even remotely similar.

If we are going to address power differentials, we also need to address how those power differentials are used. Based on how everything fell out, Rebecca attempted to address her differential with Stef by making it clear that she was addressing Stef’s ideas and not attacking Stef as a person. I don’t see how it can be done any better than that unless we simply start ignoring everything that other people say so we don’t accidentally hurt their feelings by debating an issue with them.

At academic conferences, people routinely stand up and trash (and I mean TRASH, not what Rebecca did) each other right there in front of each other. Im not saying that’s good or bad, just mentioning it. I don’t know how a leadership conference like this normally goes, never been to one.

Also, what is the timing here regarding Stef’s video? Rebecca was an invited guest at a conference sponsored by her group. Was it appropriate to start a fight with a guest using a podcast? I’m just asking. What if the person with the widely known persona had been the one to launch a critique via a podcast?

It is possible that none of that is important. What might be more important is the simple question: Should Rebecca have expected her off the cuff remark about Elevator Guy to have been left alone, or should she have expected there to be a comment here and there about it?

If the answer to this question is the latter, then can we re-ask the question for Stef: Should she have expected her video blog to be the final word, or should she have expected a response?

I am not sure that anyone is arguing that either woman should not have said something when they said it. The question may be more of whether or not the comments were properly set up and contextualized and delivered, and if not, how could that have been different.

That said, that misstep was a tiny part of what happened and Rebecca was on balance in the right in the broader events of the elevator thing.