Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
virmilitaris wrote: »Why do you label some men in this misogynistic but you don't label the women misandrist ?
I'm not annoyed or trying to defend my fellow male apes as I feel no more comradeship to a man as I do to a woman. I'm just curious to see whether I have missed something or if the word misogynistic gets thrown around more easily than the word misandrist ?
I haven't seen any comments regarding this issue from women who seem to have an innate hatred for "men" - men who are instantly dismissive and rude and incapable of respectful discussion, yes - but not the entire gender. I'm not suggesting they don't exist, I know there are certainly a few loopers about but I hadn't seen any with that particular theme posting...maybe I stopped reading before the worst descended?virmilitaris wrote: »I was commenting specifically on the most serious nonsense in respect of our community, from what I would have considered rational thinkers, which I see as what is been thrown at RD.
I've quite possibly missed a lot of the crap but from what I've read the extremist **** been thrown at RW is in the form of comments on blogs by trolls of which the most educated seem to be calling her a feminazi or telling her she should be glad of the attention because of her looks. i.e. From nobodies in particular with no particular standing in the community making schoolyard insults. (name calling, threats etc)
The **** been thrown at RD however is from sources that should have more cope on and have really damaged their reputations and the community because of it. Bloggers such as the blaghag etc. i.e. From usually good sources making serious accusations. (RD is misogynistic, RD should listen to these rape victims etc)
In my mind the latter is far more serious than the former.
I think he's getting a lot of flack because he's a very big fish who used a third party blog to ridicule a woman who has nowhere near his status about a subject close to many women's hearts - and tastelessly parodied a subject that many women [and men] feel very strongly about to do so. Double bogey.
In the interests of rationality; perhaps they have a point? Perhaps it is difficult for a septuagenarian to understand the plea RW made or the reason some women resonate with that? Perhaps the reason for his ill-thought out or ill-timed response is ignorance? And maybe he isn't alone there and that's the issue?virmilitaris wrote: »Again I haven't read anywhere near all of this. I've read a bit of the thread on PZ's blog, skepchick and blaghag as well as some links offered here so if I've missed most of this **** show and RW's getting similar abuse from reputable sources then I'm sorry for not including it but it wasn't important to my point which was this is damaging the skeptic community.
Rational people are acting irrationally, that's my biggest concern here.
Well that's an oxymoron - maybe they aren't rational people after-all? Could it be that highlighting that is what actually caused the polarisation? It could be it's an argument that needs to be thrashed out - there are clearly enough standing in opposition that the issue is worth acknowledging and given some thought to...not that I agree with how some are choosing to do that.
virmilitaris wrote: »Well how about throwing down the old flag of truce on boards.ie then and maybe show the rest of the interweb how to behave like reasonable people ?
Throw down the flag of truce? How fittingly dramatic!
I haven't lifted a flag, tbh - I could understand RW's initial point and have been one of the few voices trying to explain why RD was out of line, why RW had the right to make the initial point and had a reason for doing so that should be respected...in a forum where the natural demographics mean any discussion on gender lines are very one-sided - and despite it being deemed appropriate to point out that I mod a forum aimed at women because presumably that gives more weight to the dismissal of my views?
Nope, no flag here - as I stated in one of my first posts, I was surprised at the general vitriol directed at RW from the outset - and surprised at the lack of rational thought shown. Especially given many of the negative comments and dismissals came from (the inevitable trolls that show up for their own sad kicks and giggles aside) a usually enlightened and thoughtful community which trades on fighting to get the wider population to understand and respect a minority viewpoint in the name of fairness - and of course I was [am] very disappointed in both RD's response and those that lauded it.virmilitaris wrote: »So how about it ?
:cool: >-O-<0 -
-
Ickle Magoo wrote: »I haven't seen any comments regarding this issue from women who seem to have an innate hatred for "men" - men who are instantly dismissive and rude and incapable of respectful discussion, yes - but not the entire gender. I'm not suggesting they don't exist, I know there are certainly a few loopers about but I hadn't seen any with that particular theme posting...maybe I stopped reading before the worst descended?
Wasn't it you who linked the blog where the woman said she's worried about been raped every time she meets some guy and leaves his number and name on her computer monitor every time she goes out ? That's not misandrist ?I think he's getting a lot of flack because he's a very big fish who used a third party blog to ridicule a woman who has nowhere near his status about a subject close to many women's hearts - and tastelessly parodied a subject that many women [and men] feel very strongly about to do so.
Which subject would that be ? Because most people attacking him seem to think that subject is potential rape which I hope you agree is nonsense.In the interests of rationality; perhaps they have a point?
Who in particular ? The women claiming Dawkins was ridiculing rape and rape victims or the women claiming they can't meet a strange man anywhere without fear of getting killed / raped ?Perhaps it is difficult for a septuagenarian to understand the plea RW made or the reason some women resonate with that?
A "plea" which is constantly transforming before our eyes.
Asking for men not to approach her / women in such a situation as she found herself in because it made her uncomfortable. No issue with me. I can understand it even if I don't completely agree with it. Relatively speaking a complete non-issue but it's her video she can say what she likes.Perhaps the reason for his ill-thought out or ill-timed response is ignorance? And maybe he isn't alone there and that's the issue?
Or perhaps the hysterical ravings of many feminists to his response is ignorant and they are incapable of discussing this issue objectively because to do so would mean Dawkins was guilty of been ill-mannered and not guilty of crimes against womankind ?Well that's an oxymoron - maybe they aren't rational people after-all?
Indeed. I'm beginning to have my doubts.Could it be that highlighting that is what actually caused the polarisation? It could be it's an argument that needs to be thrashed out - there are clearly enough standing in opposition that the issue is worth acknowledging and given some thought to...not that I agree with how some are choosing to do that.
Fair enough. Let's thrash it out but let's do so sensibly then.I haven't lifted a flag, tbh ....
No I suppose you haven't.
But you do seem unwilling to call out many of the feminist bloggers spewing complete rubbish (rape victims letters etc) as well as RW herself who might have been firmly on the right side when this began, is now most definitely as wrong as Dawkins was. Or have I missed it ?
Just one incident in particular where she called out that student is enough to show why she is also in the wrong.
Actually Screw it. Here's it said better than I could. If you don't agree with this video would you care to explain why ?
0 -
virmilitaris wrote: »Wasn't it you who linked the blog where the woman said she's worried about been raped every time she meets some guy and leaves his number and name on her computer monitor every time she goes out ? That's not misandrist ?
I don't recall ever making such a link, no. Iirc, I linked to a male blogger...and also quoted a male blogger as well.
Have you actually read the thread virmilitaris?virmilitaris wrote: »Fair enough. Let's thrash it out but let's do so sensibly then.
I've done enough thrashing for one thread...I think at this stage all those who were going to "get it" - have already...and those who don't and don't want to, have a whole world of posts, blogs and articles to try to better understand, should they ever wish to.virmilitaris wrote: »No I suppose you haven't.
But you do seem unwilling to call out many of the feminist bloggers spewing complete rubbish (rape victims letters etc) as well as RW herself who might have been firmly on the right side when this began, is now most definitely as wrong as Dawkins was. Or have I missed it ?
If you'd read the thread - you'd know that wasn't true...and you'd also know I don't think it detracts from the initial point being made or the embarrassing lack of understanding that followed, either. It just seems to give those that had no time for the complaint in the first place justification for discrediting the complainant - while conveniently ignoring the wider issue it raised.virmilitaris wrote: »Just one incident in particular where she called out that student is enough to show why she is also in the wrong.
And if you'd read the thread, you'd have seen my view on that, too.
Nite nite.
<adds any number of vids and blogs from males who do get it> and demands to know how I can't now be declared right.
Doesn't really get us anywhere, does it?0 -
Ickle Magoo wrote: »I don't recall ever making such a link, no. Iirc, I linked to a male blogger...and also quoted a male blogger as well.
Have you actually read the thread virmilitaris?
I asked it as a question. I wasn't sure if you did link it hence the '?'
But you must have read it then in which case do you not label such comments as misandrist or not ?I've done enough thrashing for one thread...I think at this stage all those who were going to "get it" - have already...and those who don't and don't want to, have a whole world of posts, blogs and articles to try to better understand, should they ever wish to.
Everyone who doesn't agree with me doesn't get it ? I know that you are intelligent enough to retract or rephrase that.
I do get it. I'm pretty sure most of the posters here get it. I understand and even agree to an extent with it. The guy in the elevator clearly didn't employ good social skills.
I even agree that RW was reasonable to ask men not to behave like that to her and that it would be good advice for all would-be suitors of others to employ more tact in their dealings with the opposite sex.
Where we part ways is when hysterical nonsense comes into it such as the accusations of potential rape.If you'd read the thread - you'd know that wasn't true...
Where have you dismissed the latest actions of RW or the bloggers coming out with the accusations of potential rape ? Apologies if I missed it. I have skimmed the entire thread but it's long and I did come late.and you'd also know I don't think it detracts from the initial point being made
No it doesn't and I said as much in my last post. In fact I went out of my way to say it. Have you read the thread ?<adds any number of vids and blogs from males who do get it> and demands to know how I can't now be declared right.
I'm beginning to see a pattern to many of the RW supporters posts. You seem to think having males that agree with your position should add extra weight to it when dealing with other males.
I didn't post that video because it was posted by a female, I posted it because I happen to agree with the person posting it.0 -
-
-
-
Weird one I've just noticed on skepchick:
http://skepchick.org/2011/06/hug-me-at-tam/
Basically, get a vaccine at TAM this weekend and Elyse Anders is offering to hug you.
Two weeks ago, I'd have said this was a great idea. A bit of fun, a bit of a laugh, lots of warm feelings while improving herd immunity
But following the Dawkins/Watson spat, I'd be afraid that something -- anything -- would be misinterpreted as hitting on Ms Anders. Should be interesting to see how many men offer to get themselves vaccinated.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Weird one I've just noticed on skepchick:
http://skepchick.org/2011/06/hug-me-at-tam/
Basically, get a vaccine at TAM this weekend and Elyse Anders is offering to hug you.
Two weeks ago, I'd have said this was a great idea. A bit of fun, a bit of a laugh, lots of warm feelings while improving herd immunity
But following the Dawkins/Watson spat, I'd be afraid that something -- anything -- would be misinterpreted as hitting on Ms Anders. Should be interesting to see how many men offer to get themselves vaccinated.
But Ms Anders is offering a hug - offering...can you not see a difference between approaching a women in a lift at 4am to invite them to your room and a woman offering a hug at a busy event? Seriously?
I'm getting more disappointed by the post.0 -
Yes, of course I canIckle Magoo wrote: »But Ms Anders is offering a hug - offering...can you not see a difference between approaching a women in a lift at 4am to invite them to your room and a woman offering a hug at a busy event? But I wasn't referring to the elevator incident here.
On the contrary, what I'm concerned about here is the different perspectives that could be taken of it. As above, two weeks back, I'd have viewed women as equal to men, and a hug at random like that was no different to hugging a man in that kind of social situation. It's a friendly human thing to do. I would have liked it.
Two weeks later, I now understand that there are a significant number of women out there -- what portion, I've no idea, but they're certainly voluble -- who view me as a possible sexual predator and potential rapist. I have no desire whatsoever to put myself into a position where I could be viewed as a potential rapist. Hence, while I would have supported this kind of thing two weeks back, I certainly wouldn't be offering myself to be hugged today - in the specific context of the fight that's arisen, and the open, public distrust that has boiled to the surface.
BTW, I've just read the first bit of Watson's latest post:
http://skepchick.org/2011/07/frequently-answered-questions/
In which she says "All men are not rapists. Most men aren’t, even!".
Most men aren't rapists?
That's a trifle ungenerous of her, wouldn't you agree?0 -
-
I've just googled this lady. I look more like her avatar than she does.Weird one I've just noticed on skepchick:
http://skepchick.org/2011/06/hug-me-at-tam/
Basically, get a vaccine at TAM this weekend and Elyse Anders is offering to hug you.
Still, a hug's a hug. 0 -
-
-
Yes, of course I can But I wasn't referring to the elevator incident here.
okay...
On the contrary, what I'm concerned about here is the different perspectives that could be taken of it. As above, two weeks back, I'd have viewed women as equal to men, and a hug at random like that was no different to hugging a man in that kind of social situation. It's a friendly human thing to do. I would have liked it.
Two weeks later, I now understand that there are a significant number of women out there -- what portion, I've no idea, but they're certainly voluble -- who view me as a possible sexual predator and potential rapist. I have no desire whatsoever to put myself into a position where I could be viewed as a potential rapist. Hence, while I would have supported this kind of thing two weeks back, I certainly wouldn't be offering myself to be hugged today - in the specific context of the fight that's arisen, and the open, public distrust that has boiled to the surface.
That's your prerogative, of course...and I do realise it is just the flip side of the "I don't know how many men are rapists so I'm just going to presume all", presumably we're going somewhere with this...Oh yeah, it's the position you've all been arguing is so irrational...and I don't think anyone here has actually suggested.
Would the most rational solution not be, yet again, somewhere in the middle? Perhaps a public acknowledgement that a hugging event is an appropriate place to hug the person who invited you for a hug which nobody should take the wrong way or they are likely to make people feel anxious and be considered a weirdo - while it's not appropriate to go up and hug people we don't know because it is likely to make them feel anxious and make us look like complete weirdos...and then everyone could apply that rationale across the board? I'm pretty sure I've already said as much pages ago...BTW, I've just read the first bit of Watson's latest post:
http://skepchick.org/2011/07/frequently-answered-questions/
In which she says "All men are not rapists. Most men aren’t, even!".
Most men aren't rapists?
That's a trifle ungenerous of her, wouldn't you agree?
We're wandering into a completely different topic from the one I thought was worth defending...
Tbh, it could be worse, should could have used unqualified statistics in size 7 font instead. Most aren't - at least she's conceded that much...it should be the vast majority aren't rapists but it's a start back on the road to rationality on that particular hot potato, at least.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfA5AZutpCs
Advertisement