Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Ickle Magoo

enfant terrible wrote: »

Come on Ickle I'm sure you rudely shot down a few guys in your time

I try to treat guys with the same level of respect they afford me - so only when they've deliberately cornered me, groped me or made some drunken lewd comment - but in their defence, they've never then gone on to complain that I consider them socially retarded creeps for choosing to behave like that.

robindch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Not least because of the sheer volume of male participants who refuse to see that RD's thoughts on the matter are are no different to the arguments those fighting secularism use.

RD didn't use quite the same arguments, since RD isn't himself supporting misogyny (as far as I can see) or is he supporting outfits which support it -- two things which the anti-secularists are typically guilty of. He simply belitted her complaint, which he shouldn't have, or at least not publicly if he really wanted to.

That said, I reckon that most guys think that RD's first response was, to say the very least about it, stupid and unsympathetic and that he should withdraw it.

Just as RW should withdraw her subsequent stupid 'privilege delusion' response, in which she mentions, in the third paragraph, that her experience of responses from male skeptics and atheists to the suggestion that there should be more women in the two movements range from “No, they’re not logical like us,” to “Yes, so we can fuck them!”". A range of responses which is so completely unlike every other one I've heard, or heard of, either myself or indirectly through other women skeptics and atheists, both here in A+A and in the Skeptics forum, and via the Skeptics in The Pub, and by ten years' involvement with the Irish Skeptics Society, that I believe I'm on fairly firm ground when I say that either she's dealing with some small group of weird males who are unlike those in the wider skeptical and atheist movements, or else she's being a trifle economical with the truth (something which chimes unhappily with previous events involving RW over at JFREF; login needed.)

Certainly, nobody produced anything like that kind of response during the "Women Atheist Activists" talk at the Dublin conference, or during the Q+A afterwards. Even RW herself, sitting (AFAIR) around ten feet to my right, didn't mention this systemic, important and glaring failure.

Ickle Magoo

robindch wrote: »

RD didn't use quite the same arguments, since RD isn't himself supporting misogyny (as far as I can see) or is he supporting outfits which support it -- two things which the anti-secularists are typically guilty of. He simply belitted her complaint, which he shouldn't have, or at least not publicly if he really wanted to.

I think it's the hypocrisy & arrogance of deeming he can pick and choose the issues deemed worthy of public discussion, public comment or to request social change in. That something just because it happens to fall outside his sphere of interest/understanding should be compared to human tragedy elsewhere and made ridiculous. Given how easily his argument can be transferred onto other topics which it's common knowledge he'd consider worthy of reporting or has yet to complain about; it was the topic he chose to wade in on compounded by the subject matter he chose to parody that gave it distinctly misogynistic over-tones...

robindch wrote: »

That said, I reckon that most guys think that RD's first response was, to say the very least about it, stupid and unsympathetic and that he should withdraw it.

Agreed.

robindch wrote: »

Just as RW should withdraw her subsequent stupid 'privilege delusion' response, in which she mentions, in the third paragraph, that her experience of responses from male skeptics and atheists to the suggestion that there should be more women in the two movements range from “No, they’re not logical like us,” to “Yes, so we can fuck them!”".

I actually think RW made a good initial point and that gradually disintegrated into goodness knows what. With each response to each retort getting gradually more exaggerated and ridiculous - from both sides. Even a caricature of the very real dismissals and protestations that men's right to proposition usurp any rights women have wouldn't result in either of those comments above holding true - for me at least.

robindch wrote: »

A range of responses which is so completely unlike every other one I've heard, or heard of, either myself or indirectly through other women skeptics and atheists, both here in A+A and in the Skeptics forum, and via the Skeptics in The Pub, and by ten years' involvement with the Irish Skeptics Society, that I believe I'm on fairly firm ground when I say that either she's dealing with some small group of weird males who are unlike those in the wider skeptical and atheist movements, or else she's being a trifle economical with the truth (something which chimes unhappily with previous events involving RW over at JFREF; login needed.)

Certainly, nobody produced anything like that kind of response during the "Women Atheist Activists" talk at the Dublin conference, or during the Q+A afterwards. Even RW herself, sitting (AFAIR) around ten feet to my right, didn't mention this systemic, important and glaring failure.

While those claims are, I think, clearly exaggerated or made up for maximum effect - would you agree with the (rather popular if other blogs and articles are anything to go on) feeling that the RD retort and subsequent support for the idea that there are bigger fish to fry when it comes to somebody else's issues while at the same time arguing the worth of various secular aims, ignoring how lame and pointless others view them is symptomatic of a wider dismissive and self-serving ignorance...and that does translate into reducing what could otherwise be willing membership?

Dades

smiles302 wrote: »

She hasn't named elevator guy.

I think he should be called Grassy Noel.

DexyDrain

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

While those claims are, I think, clearly exaggerated or made up for maximum effect - would you agree with the (rather popular if other blogs and articles are anything to go on) feeling that the RD retort and subsequent support for the idea that there are bigger fish to fry when it comes to somebody else's issues while at the same time arguing the worth of various secular aims, ignoring how lame and pointless others view them is symptomatic of a wider dismissive and self-serving ignorance...and that does translate into reducing what could otherwise be willing membership?

I think what Dawkins was trying to get across is that oppression and abuse of women is a very serious issue that deserves more attention that it gets. However, there is a baseline of normal human species interactions in the mating game and this incident did not appear to stray outside the norms of boozy post-conference partying, or even everyday life. When you have a mountain of misogyny to climb, does it make sense to start digging into the ground of normal baseline interactions as well, making this the issue of the day, not stonings etc.?

I don't think he was at all saying 'this is small time stuff compared to x,y,z', I personally feel he means 'this is the chess game that is part and parcel of sexual reproduction in a clearly dimorphic species' ie. opening up a 'second front' against the 'charm-challenged' but pretty average guy who for all we know was doing nothing more than trying to strike up a friendship (and maybe more... as the ads say).

Akrasia

I just wish Dawkins would simply apologise for the offense he caused, acknowledge that there is an issue with women having to deal with unwanted sexual advances and maybe make some point about how this is probably at least partially an innate behaviour (to some in a greater extent than in others), but that we're supposed to be rational and civilised and should be able to restrain ourselves out of respect for our fellow human beings.

Ickle Magoo

DexyDrain wrote: »

I think what Dawkins was trying to get across is that oppression and abuse of women is a very serious issue that deserves more attention that it gets. However, there is a baseline of normal human species interactions in the mating game and this incident did not appear to stray outside the norms of boozy post-conference partying, or even everyday life. When you have a mountain of misogyny to climb, does it make sense to start digging into the ground of normal baseline interactions, making this the issue of the day, not stonings etc.?

I don't think he was at all saying 'this is small time stuff compared to x,y,z', I personally feel he means 'this is the chess game that is part and parcel of sexual reproduction in a clearly dimorphic species'.

I guess that depends on where you draw the line at what should be considered part and parcel - same as differing opinions on how much or how little involvement religion should have in state matters...after all, it could be concluded that it's just part and parcel of life in ireland...put up, shut up.

Again, when religions are preventing condoms being used in AIDS ravaged countries and kids are being taught about YEC - why is there complaint about the angeles or the odd priest on a school board? Surely when there is a mountain of religious oppression to climb why bother with the stuff that affects you in your daily life - as well as concentrating on the bigger picture?

"Do what I say, not what I do - and especially if it involves something I don't actually have to live with." Seems to be the over-riding message, tbh...

Fanny Cradock

Akrasia wrote: »

... we're supposed to be rational and civilised and should be able to restrain ourselves out of respect for our fellow human beings.

Do you mean atheists or all of humanity?

axer

Akrasia wrote: »

I just wish Dawkins would simply apologise for the offense he caused, acknowledge that there is an issue with women having to deal with unwanted sexual advances and maybe make some point about how this is probably at least partially an innate behaviour (to some in a greater extent than in others), but that we're supposed to be rational and civilised and should be able to restrain ourselves out of respect for our fellow human beings.

So how does one be sure that a sexual advance is wanted before making one?

Surely if everyone played it safe there would be not much lovin' going on in the world.

The way I see it is there is nothing wrong with approaching someone as long as the approacher is polite and not persistent but then again there are plenty of women out there that love being pursued.

DexyDrain

Akrasia wrote: »

I just wish Dawkins would simply apologise for the offense he caused, acknowledge that there is an issue with women having to deal with unwanted sexual advances and maybe make some point about how this is probably at least partially an innate behaviour (to some in a greater extent than in others), but that we're supposed to be rational and civilised and should be able to restrain ourselves out of respect for our fellow human beings.

We all have to deal with unwanted advances from door-to-door sales people, charity muggers, Garda checkpoints etc. Men do fear being robbed or beaten when walking alone at night with very good reason, some men are bigger than others, just as many women are weaker than many men. This perspective on modern life is not restricted to feminists in lifts and their perceptions of creepiness. It's a universal concern to everyone living in communities made up mostly of strangers.

DexyDrain

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I guess that depends on where you draw the line at what should be considered part and parcel - same as differing opinions on how much or how little involvement religion should have in state matters...after all, it could be concluded that it's just part and parcel of life in ireland...put up, shut up.

Again, when religions are preventing condoms being used in AIDS ravaged countries and kids are being taught about YEC - why is there complaint about the angeles or the odd priest on a school board? Surely when there is a mountain of religious oppression to climb why bother with the stuff that affects you in your daily life - as well as concentrating on the bigger picture?

"Do what I say, not what I do - and especially if it involves something I don't actually have to live with." Seems to be the over-riding message, tbh...

Look, we can't get more basic than having a species made up of two sexes that, in order to reproduce, requires two genetically remote persons getting from stranger to lover before old age pulls over the curtains. To that end, some degree of wanted and unwanted propositioning has to take place, whether in a limestone crag on the fringe of the savannah or the lift of a Dublin hotel. If you don't want to 'put up or shut up' there is only artificial insemination to keep you warm at night.

Ickle Magoo

DexyDrain wrote: »

We all have to deal with unwanted advances from door-to-door sales people, charity muggers, Garda checkpoints etc. Men do fear being robbed or beaten when walking alone at night with very good reason, some men are bigger than others, just as many women are weaker than many men. This perspective on modern life is not restricted to feminists in lifts and their perceptions of creepiness. It's a universal concern to everyone living in communities made up mostly of strangers.

But presumably you don't want sex or a relationship with the charity mugger or door-to-door salespeople? Guys want to have all this loving that they keep saying won't happen unless they make unwanted advances - I think the point being missed is that throwing a one-liner at a woman alone in a lift is going to end in rejection - polite or otherwise - 99% of the time...approach another way and there would probably be a lot less rejection and less women would be on the defensive when they are approached. Thus, Grassy's approach is completely self-defeating on top of not being appreciated by the vast majority who are thrown the line...it would benefit both men and women if it wasn't used...that was as much as I agree with RW on.

DexyDrain wrote:

Look, we can't get more basic than having a species made up of two sexes that, in order to reproduce, requires two genetically remote persons getting from stranger to lover before old age pulls over the curtains. To that end, some degree of wanted and unwanted propositioning has to take place, whether in a limestone crag on the fringe of the savannah or the lift of a Dublin hotel. If you don't want to 'put up or shut up' there is only artificial insemination to keep you warm at night.

There are clearly plenty of other ways to approach women - which would be a damn sight more successful - than throwing a line at her in an empty lift...I think making out that humans cannot control their impulses and urges when in this one situation but are able to do so when going about every other aspect of their life is patently ridiculous. Especially while also arguing we are now too sophisticated to need to make up deities to make ourselves feel better. We seem to be back to that self-serving double standard again.

DexyDrain

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think the point being missed is that throwing a one-liner at a woman alone in a lift is going to end in rejection - polite or otherwise - 99% of the time...approach another way and there would probably be a lot less rejection and less women would be on the defensive when they are approached. Thus, Grassy's approach is completely self-defeating on top of not being appreciated by the vast majority who are thrown the line...it would benefit both men and women if it wasn't used...that was as much as I agree with RW on.


There are clearly plenty of other ways to approach women - which would be a damn sight more successful - than throwing a line at her in an empty lift...I think making out that humans cannot control their impulses and urges when in this one situation but are able to do so when going about every other aspect of their life is patently ridiculous. Especially while also arguing we are now too sophisticated to need to make up deities to make ourselves feel better. We seem to be back to that self-serving double standard again.

So we agree then the biggest problem here was he simply reduced his chances to 'score', not that RW was forced into some exceptional and disquieting situation by having to handle the risk of sharing a lift with a man who asked her out and then accepted her rejection unconditionally?

Do you equate politely asking someone to go for a coffee with an inability to control innate impulses and urges? I'm slowly starting to see how this poor chap fell into the centre of this sorry mess.

robindch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think it's the hypocrisy & arrogance of deeming he can pick and choose the issues deemed worthy of public discussion, public comment or to request social change in.

I think that's misplaced -- he posted a reply to one of PZ's blog entries. It was one of hundreds of comments, and PZ (on the opposite side of this debate to RD) was the one giving RW's video blog airtime, not RD.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I actually think RW made a good initial point and that gradually disintegrated into goodness knows what. With each response to each retort getting gradually more exaggerated and ridiculous - from both sides.

Likewise. Save that the last of RD's three posts on the topic simply asked people to let him know where he'd missed stuff. That seems like a reasonable thing to do, given the kerfuffle to date. It remains to be seen whether he posts anything further on the topic.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

While those claims are, I think, clearly exaggerated or made up for maximum effect [...]

I must say, I don't like that. If somebody's going to complain about something, and go to the extent of complaint that's been reached, then it is crucial that the complaint is fully legitimate. Anything less is either dishonest or indistinguishable from dishonesty.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

[...] would you agree with the [...] that the RD retort and subsequent support for the idea that there are bigger fish to fry when it comes to somebody else's issues while at the same time arguing the worth of various secular aims, ignoring how lame and pointless others view them (a) is symptomatic of a wider dismissive and self-serving ignorance...and (b) that does translate into reducing what could otherwise be willing membership?

Two questions there, highlighted:

(a) I don't think RD should have dismissed RW's post as he did. So we agree on the "dismissive" bit. Also, as above, he has asked for people to help him understand what he's missing, so while he might be ignorant of RW's wider feelings on the topic, I don't think it's culpable ignorance and neither do I think it's self-serving, since I don't think he's come out of this mess looking very good. Neither do I think that RD's post is representative of the wider skeptic or atheist communities, as RD possibly believes, and RW appears to believe and claim. That said, while RW's initial "guys, don't do this" post was absolutely fine with me, the sentiment behind RD's post, if not the expression of it -- basically "have some perspective" -- was not unreasonable (though it was certainly poorly timed) in the specific context of a generalized and widespread violence against women elsewhere which had been discussed at length during the conference.

(b) Now we're into the "optics" of the whole thing. I think RD and RW should both apologize, to each other and try learn from what's happened (and if RW was economic avec la verité, well, she should own up to it and apologize for that too). And while RD seems now to be a hate figure for a certain group of female skeptics/atheists, I can't help but feel that RW has stoked this conflict well beyond where it should have stopped. And while she might have picked up a few supporters by adopting this stance, I would imagine that the broader skeptic/atheist community has deep misgivings about the whole saga, and probably more so against RW's side for continuing it, than against RD's side which tried to contain it.

Certainly, amongst the couple of female skeptics/atheists whom I've asked, the feelings's much the same as mine: RW was initially quite correct, RD initially quite wrong, but the offense taken by RW was disproportionate and RD's request for info to help him understand was the right thing to do, even if he didn't apologize for his earlier stupid posting.

As for where it will all end? Well, I'd say give it another week or two and it'll all fizzle out, possibly more so on RD's side than RW who, having adopted this position, I think is going to have a hard time backing herself down.

Ickle Magoo

DexyDrain wrote: »

So we agree then the biggest problem here was he simply reduced his chances to 'score', not that RW was forced into some exceptional and disquieting situation by having to handle the risk of sharing a lift with a man who asked her out and then accepted her rejection unconditionally?

Do we agree that the initial point RW was trying to make was that men do nothing but reduce their chances with women by such an approach? And do we also agree that there are reasons WHY that is the case?

DexyDrain wrote: »

Do you equate politely asking someone to go for a coffee with an inability to control innate impulses and urges? I'm slowly starting to see how this poor chap fell into the centre of this sorry mess.

Probably by making the same mistake you are and blithely refusing to see the clear difference between an ordinary polite request for coffee [which I would imagine most people would be receptive to] with following a women in a hotel into an empty lift at 4am and without so much as telling them your name, asking if they want to come to your hotel room.

pH

(a) I don't think RD should have dismissed RW's post as he did. So we agree on the "dismissive" bit. Also, as above, he has asked for people to help him understand what he's missing, so while he might be ignorant of RW's wider feelings on the topic, I don't think it's culpable ignorance and neither do I think it's self-serving, since I don't think he's come out of this mess looking very good.

There's been a lot thrown around about this post of Dawkins, but there's another perspective. Look now at the key issues discussed on 11th July International Day against Stoning. Now I accept sexism has been a huge problem in the past, I also accept that even in modern western societies it still exists in part, however, you've got to remember that when we're talking about privilege; college educated white american women are pretty high up the tree (obviously not as high as the equivalent male, but there you go).

So now look at this from worldwide secular feminism, what are the optics on this whole thing? Well that obviously western feminism doesn't really care about how women are treated in much of the Muslim world, but the cause de jouer is making sure that no white woman ever has to face a polite (but unwanted) sexual advance (if indeed it was - "Don't take this the wrong way").

"Dear Muslima" ...

I think that Dawkins isn't picking and choosing what can be discussed, he's really just saying going down this path is very much leaving the feminist atheist movement open to scathing criticism from outsiders that it's far more interested in securing and classifying rights for educated white women in pretty "safe" social surrounding.

He's saying if this debate is escalated and takes centre stage then to all intents and purposes July 11 does become his "Dear Muslima" letter.

DexyDrain

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Do we agree that the initial point RW was trying to make was that men do nothing but reduce their chances with women by such an approach? And do we also agree that there are reasons WHY that is the case?

No, without going back to listen again, I'm sure she claimed he 'sexualised her' and made her uncomfortable.

Probably by making the same mistake you are and blithely refusing to see the clear difference between an ordinary polite request for coffee [which I would imagine most people would be receptive to] with following a women in a hotel into an empty lift at 4am and without so much as telling them your name, asking if they want to come to your hotel room.

There is nothing to suggest he deliberately 'followed her' into the lift in order to proposition her, RW did not say that, she said he was in the lift as well. He could have been there waiting first for all we know, maybe even thought she followed him. I haven't seen this clarified yet. She said she told those around her she was tired and implies the guy must have known this, so he must have been in the same group she was socialising with.

Ickle Magoo

robindch wrote: »

I think that's misplaced -- he posted a reply to one of PZ's blog entries. It was one of hundreds of comments, and PZ (on the opposite side of this debate to RD) was the one giving RW's video blog airtime, not RD.

I mean in terms of attacking the views - he is not alone in puting areas of secularism that many others deem pointless and hysterical and easy to live with on a platform under the banner of rational and just and up for discussion and change in the western world but when others do likewise suddenly it's okay to pull the "Geez, there are worst things in the world card".

It was cheap and hypocritical - he completely dismisses RW domestic pet peeve as being unworthy of complaint while there are greater ills in the world while refusing to apply the same rationale to his own. It also suggests that she cannot both want men to stop hitting on her as well as wanting women's rights to improve - presumably most here have and are able to air their views on secularism in Ireland without being accused of being uncaring or devaluing the issues in other countries? Why the double standard?

robindch wrote: »

Likewise. Save that the last of RD's three posts on the topic simply asked people to let him know where he'd missed stuff. That seems like a reasonable thing to do, given the kerfuffle to date. It remains to be seen whether he posts anything further on the topic.

I await with baited breath and hope he can redeem himself then.

robindch wrote: »

I must say, I don't like that. If somebody's going to complain about something, and go to the extent of complaint that's been reached, then it is crucial that the complaint is fully legitimate. Anything less is either dishonest or indistinguishable from dishonesty.

I think some clearly do feel that way - but as you say, I don't think it represents many women's opinion on the matter - and to suggest it does is in itself an exaggeration...but then I have a feeling it was just thrown out to wind up those guilty of under-exaggeration and dismissal rather than making any serious point...at least I would hope it isn't a genuine and widespread complaint.

robindch wrote: »

As for where it will all end? Well, I'd say give it another week or two and it'll all fizzle out, possibly more so on RD's side than RW who, having adopted this position, I think is going to have a hard time backing herself down.

She'd have done much better to sit back and let the furore happen around her than start jumping up and down - she's certainly lost a lot of credibility by turning it into some kind of toy out of pram throwing contest.

It's all rather embarrassing, more so that a lot of people have come out of it looking a great deal less enlightened and free-thinking than they ever wanted to let on about or, perhaps, even realised...unfortunately, I think that group is also going to include RD.

Ickle Magoo

DexyDrain wrote: »

No, without going back to listen again, I'm sure she claimed he 'sexualised her' and made her uncomfortable.

And you think it lessens chances because.......?

DexyDrain wrote: »

There is nothing to suggest he deliberately 'followed her' into the lift in order to proposition her, RW did not say that, she said he was in the lift as well. He could have been there waiting first for all we know, maybe even thought she followed him. I haven't seen this clarified yet. She said she told those around her she was tired and implies the guy must have known this, so he must have been in the same group she was socialising with.

So Rebecca Watson does her spiel on feminism vis a vis the skeptical community, and wants to party with the conferees. Suddenly it's 4am, and she's closing down the bar with fellow skeptics. She's sleepy. She says she's gonna go to bed. She gets on the elevator, and a guy from the bar hops on, too.

from HERE and HERE...I don't know their sources.

Presumably by the same logic, if it's not been absolutely stated how he acted and what he'd heard then I guess we shouldn't jump to conclusions that she shouldn't have felt uneasy, then?

_________________

Unrelated to the above...and perhaps I shouldn't have laughed but I did...



:pac:

DexyDrain

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And you think it lessens chances because.......?

I don't know if you are confusing me more than yourself! Recap: you said her point in the video was that his approach was bound to fail. I said her point was actually that he had apparently 'sexualised' her, which made her uncomfortable and annoyed, therefore he was being sexist and creepy. You reply that that validates your point even though your point about what she meant in the video is not what she meant in the video.

Do I have that right??

from HERE and HERE...I don't know their sources.

Presumably by the same logic, if it's not been absolutely stated how he acted and what he'd heard then I guess we shouldn't jump to conclusions that she shouldn't have felt uneasy, then?

No, she doesn't give us any information about the guy or the context he emerged from that we could infer his sexist, creepy and threatening nature.

mewso

Taken in a vacuum I think Watson's video was fine. I don't understand the general to-ing and fro-ing over it. I think it's perfectly acceptable for a women to say that men should use common sense when deciding whether to approach a woman. It is a bit dishonest to take it too literally and cry out at her daring to tell all men not to do "That".

Thats taken in a vacuum but her behaviour since would really concern me and really soils any geniune point she may have had in the first place. PZ Meyers has really dissappointed me here too defending her for using a student's name completely ignoring the real issue in that situation. i.e. using her talk at a conference to attack someone in a really nasty way fully knowing the student had no realistic way to defend herself. Sickening. It's not a good advertisement for people who would generally be considered intelligent reasonable people.

As for Dawkins I'm sorry but some of the justifications for his response are laughable. It was stupid imo. Plain and simple. He is an intelligent man and I would expect him to apologise at some point.

The problem though is that most of the arguing here has been the vacuum scenario of a bloke out of the blue propositioning a girl at 4 a.m. in a lift. I can't see how nobody can see how it lacks a certain amount of common sense. Forget about speculation. We don't know anymore about this alleged event than that. It's perfectly understandable that the girl may have been unconfortable and it doesn't make the bloke a rapist just a guy lacking in some cop on.

Ickle Magoo

DexyDrain wrote: »

I don't know if you are confusing me more than yourself! Recap: you said her point in the video was that his approach was bound to fail. I said her point was actually that he had apparently 'sexualised' her, which made her uncomfortable and annoyed, therefore he was being sexist and creepy. You reply that that validates your point even though your point about what she meant in the video is not what she meant in the video.

Do I have that right??


No, she doesn't give us any information about the guy or the context he emerged from that we could infer his sexist, creepy and threatening nature.

You now know exactly what she meant? But everyone else making assumptions is ridiculous? This just gets better and better.

I think Gawker pretty much sums up my feelings on the sexualisation comment that's caused such consternation:

Fair enough. Don't sexualize Rebecca Watson. Or, if you must, don't do it in an elevator, one-on-one, at 4am. Not because you're a creep, but because if you hit on her that way, you're behaving in a way that's indistinguishable from creepiness, and it's apt to make folks antsy. Flirt in the open. Rebecca's a progressive gal; she probably won't be morally scandalized by your desire to hook up. (And if she is, well, fuck it. Not your fault.)

and the rather unfortunate end result [thus far] is everyone becoming a bit of a laughing stock...

Then she called for a boycott of Dawkins' books.

There were many, many more blogs written along the same lines, and by the time the kerfluffle made it to The New Statesman, the fix was in. "Can Richard Dawkins still credibly pose as a champion of rational thinking and an evidence-based approach?" asked famed attorney David Allen Green. "In my opinion, he certainly cannot, at least not in the way he did before."

Interesting contention, but aren't there other, more pertinent questions worth asking?

Such as: Is it really unreasonable that a 70-year-old man who's never had to worry about sexual assault might have a hard time understanding why an attractive young woman would feel uneasy being propositioned in an elevator?

Or: Why is feminist blogger Rebecca Watson speaking dismissively of Dawkins' efforts to combat the the oppression of Muslim women? Didn't Dawkins' The God Delusion kind of jump-start the whole modern atheist revival? Does that count for anything?

Or: Can it really be that Dawkins has never been exposed to insults as odious as the ones mentioned by Ms. McCreight? As a jump-starter of the modern atheist revival, doesn't Dawkins probably get a lot more threatening hate mail than all of his critics combined?

And the best question: Have the world's self-professed rationalists really spent the last week arguing about a proposition in an elevator?

Jesus, they have. It's enough to make you wonder if anybody knows what the hell rationality's all about. Not incidentally, this isn't the first time skeptics have become so uselessly derailed. This is the movement that almost boarded up shop for a week last year while it tried to figure out if the "Skepticon" gathering had too many atheists on its speaker roster, and oughtn't therefore be called "Atheistcon." This is the movement in which a respected leader not long ago gave a talk entitled "Don't Be a Dick," and the suggestion was so novel that nobody shut up about it for weeks.

That's skeptics. Rational about everything except themselves, self-preservation, and manners

DexyDrain

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You now know exactly what she meant? But everyone else making assumptions is ridiculous? This just gets better and better.

That is what she said, those were her words, nobody needs to capture an Enigma to realise when she used plain language what she said and what she meant are presumed to be closely related. Your point bears little relation to her main complaint, or the words she actually spoke. What am I missing here?

Count Duckula

There's no way Dawkins will apologise now that he's had his character assissinated by Watson and her followers. She's not exactly painted herself in a good light through all this fallout, either.

They've all become a laughing stock by this point. Watson, Dawkins, Meyers, the whole ****ing lot of them. Pathetic.

Morphie

sink wrote: »

Amusing or not, it's a very poor argument, essentially it boils down to 'worse stuff happens, so you have no right to complain'. It's not even an argument it's simply dismissive.

Dissmissive, yes.

It's sort of how people in first world countries complain they don't have an xbox 360, when people in third world countries haven't food to eat.

What was said should make you realise how petty the first truely is. It doesn't mean to say the first should be dismissed, that's quite rude. But at least realise the contrast here before you are to continue to make such a big deal out of what is essentially nothing much.

And of course, it doesn't mean to say one shouldn't have the right to complain about not having an xbox, but they must realise that people couldn't possibly sympathise with such nonsense.

I guess it's similar to how I get irritated when someone complains about having only one holiday home.

I am surprised it was Dawkins who made the comment, as OP said, it was rather dumb and unhelpful, but he does have a point.

I will also add that I do agree that it's quite creepy and would be rather unsettling to be asked back for coffee in a lift.

Akrasia

axer wrote: »

So how does one be sure that a sexual advance is wanted before making one?

In this instance, Rebecca Watson is only recently married, so it's inappropriate for someone to try and chat her up in an elevator at 4 in the morning.

axer

Akrasia wrote: »

In this instance, Rebecca Watson is only recently married, so it's inappropriate for someone to try and chat her up in an elevator at 4 in the morning.

I didnt know that and I'm sure plenty of others didn't either.

EDIT: According to Wikipedia she is separated and in the process of getting divorced so your point is a fail. According to your post then that makes it ok to ask her for coffee at 4am in the morning?

pH

Akrasia wrote: »

In this instance, Rebecca Watson is only recently married, so it's inappropriate for someone to try and chat her up in an elevator at 4 in the morning.

Married 2 years ago, and recently announced she was getting divorced - is that inappropriate now?

Whilst we're on the subject, Rebecca met Sid (her husband - soon not to be) at the social bit of a TAM meeting - what impressed her was his ability to make "pornographic origami".

She also forced her wedding on a later TAM meeting in Las Vegas, those attending an SGU panel had to watch the 'Becca & Sid show instead.

For a woman who doesn't want to be "sexualised" or "objectified" by men in the atheist movement, she says and does some strange things, yes I know we all have to listen to Rebecca, and any man who hasn't been hanging off her every word is a creep and possible lift-rapist, but still.

Meanwhile Richard Dawkins is pilloried as a privileged white male for daring to suggest that the atrocities committed against women in much of the world are are more important than all of this.

axer

pH wrote: »

Whilst we're on the subject, Rebecca met Sid (her husband - soon not to be) at the social bit of a TAM meeting - what impressed her was his ability to make "pornographic origami".

The more I read about this woman the more I think she is talking out her hole and just looking for attention. At this stage I think she is not worth discussing.

liamw

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Unrelated to the above...and perhaps I shouldn't have laughed but I did...

And you think Dawkins would have blogged and whined about it? He probably would have laughed too.