Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

robindch

During last month's atheist conference in the Alexander Hotel, it seems that some guy invited Rebecca Watson for a coffee back in his room. At four in the morning. While the two of them were alone together in the lift going up. Watson declined, nothing further happened and the two went their separate ways when the lift doors opened. Those are the facts as far as I'm aware of them.

PZ blogged about it, Dawkins sounded off in the comments section, Watson went nuclear. And now, it's gone viral, even earning a post on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy.

Now, I've no idea what happened in the elevator and I suspect that at least one of the participants had a few drinks aboard. But while Dawkin's initial sarcastic response was dumb and unhelpful, the ensuing mad fracas seems to be completely out of all proportion to what actually happened.

Anybody else been following this?

Turtwig

I was aware it was ongoing but after reading one post I decided I had better things to read. But hey if it helps spread better awareness and understanding of feminism I'm all for it.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

During last month's atheist conference in the Alexander Hotel, it seems that some guy invited Rebecca Watson for a coffee back in his room. At four in the morning. While the two of them were alone together in the lift going up. Watson declined, nothing further happened and the two went their separate ways when the lift doors opened. Those are the facts as far as I'm aware of them.

PZ blogged about it, Dawkins sounded off in the comments section, Watson went nuclear. And now, it's gone viral, even earning a post on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy.

Now, I've no idea what happened in the elevator and I suspect that at least one of the participants had a few drinks aboard. But while Dawkin's initial sarcastic response was dumb and unhelpful, the ensuing mad fracas seems to be completely out of all proportion to what actually happened.

Anybody else been following this?

You can begin to appreciate how easy it is to produce 104,000 Christian denominations..

Turtwig

antiskeptic wrote: »

You can begin to appreciate how easy it is to produce 104,000 Christian denominations..

Eh, no just no. This isn't the thread to try and shoehorn in a defence of your mythology.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Now, I've no idea what happened in the elevator and I suspect that at least one of the participants had a few drinks aboard. But while Dawkin's initial sarcastic response was dumb and unhelpful, the ensuing mad fracas seems to be completely out of all proportion to what actually happened.

Anybody else been following this?

Well I don't think it was so much his initial comment, but the ones after it.
Especially the one that refers to the incident as "just words" which seems a little hypocritical given Dawkins' other stances.

He should have thought a little more before replying to the issue.

liamw

He must have been seriously drunk and desperate

Galvasean

This comment?

"Dear Muslima

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

Richard"

I found it amusing....


>_>

sink

Galvasean wrote: »

I found it amusing....


>_>

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.

Either the man who propositioned her in the elevator was wrong to do so, or he was not. Anything else is a red herring.

strobe

I think that claiming that someone asking you back to their place for coffee is sexism is stupid. <-- PZ Meyers with the sexism claim there. Watson just said it made her feel uncomfortable, which is fair enough, you feel how you feel.

Dawkins response was completely over the top and hyperbolic, and as we know Richard Dawkins is never hyperbolic. :rolleyes:

I think your one's response to Dawkins response was worse again.

Big storm in a little teacup. They should all try acting like adults for a second.

sionnach

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.

I don't quite agree. That implies that Dawkins thinks the act was misogynistic and bad but that other things are worse.
In my view he's saying that what happened wasn't at all bad or misogynistic and he describes actual misogyny for comparison.

Galvasean

So wait, it's sexism to proposition someone now?

Feck.

Galvasean

sionnach wrote: »

I don't quite agree. That implies that Dawkins thinks the act was misogynistic and bad but that other things are worse.
In my view he's saying that what happened wasn't at all bad or misogynistic and he describes actual misogyny for comparison.

That was also my interpretation of it.

sionnach

Galvasean wrote: »

So wait, it's sexism to proposition someone now?

Feck.

Don't forget that all middle-aged men are paedophiles too

sink

Galvasean wrote: »

So wait, it's sexism to proposition someone now?

Feck.

No, just given the circumstance, highly inappropriate. If the man wasn't a complete stranger it maybe ok, but she had never spoken to him before and he made his not so veiled attempt when the two of them were alone in a confined space. He could have asked her earlier in the bar or simply started polite conversation/mild flirting and seen if she was receptive before asking did she want to get down and dirty.

whatdoicare

Wow, so, he asked yer one back for a coffee and she said no, he said okilydokily neighbourino and that's the end of the story??
Did I miss something?

strobe

sink wrote: »

before asking did she want to get down and dirty.

To be fair he asked her {paraphrasing from her vid} "Don't take this wrong, but I thought you were really interesting, would you like to come up to my room for some coffee to talk more". It's hardly asking if she wants to "get down and dirty".

Turtwig

sink wrote: »

No, just given the circumstance, highly inappropriate. If the man wasn't a complete stranger it maybe ok, but she had never spoken to him before and he made his not so veiled attempt when the two of them were alone in a confined space. He could have asked her earlier in the bar or simply started polite conversation/mild flirting and seen if she was receptive before asking did she want to get down and dirty.

Especially when the dude knew she was going to be uncomfortable with it.
"Don't take this the wrong way but... <invite for coffee"
Yeah right, you're with a known feminist but you're a complete stranger who pretty much just spoke earlier about feminism and you have the audacity to ask her something you know she's probably gonna take up the wrong way at 4.00 a.m when your alone with her in the elevator.

strobe

^
Heh, great minds think alike Malty...

...Wait, dude... what?

AhSureTisGrand

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.

It seemed to me that his point was that making such a fuss of nothing was an insult to the women who actually do suffer from sexism. Not dissimilar to the Catholics who claim to be persecuted by boards.ie for not having a Catholic moderator, when Christians in other parts of the globe are being murdered for their beliefs

Galvasean

whatdoicare wrote: »

Wow, so, he asked yer one back for a coffee and she said no, he said okilydokily neighbourino and that's the end of the story??
Did I miss something?

Didn't you know....

Turtwig

Galvasean wrote: »

Didn't you know....

http://www.google.ie/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l8tuh9UKAA1qdybmoo1_500.jpg&sa=X&ei=gfUUToqVJcTKsgbBt8n2Dg&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNEi4-XX7OjX2zq3g9FuHP08ZVfGsA

That.....is........just..........freeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaakkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkyyyyyyyy.

sink

strobe wrote: »

To be fair he asked her {paraphrasing from her vid} "Don't take this wrong, but I thought you were really interesting, would you like to come up to my room for some coffee to talk more". It's hardly asking if she wants to "get down and dirty".

I see your not familiar with innuendo, perhaps you should read up on it.

strobe

sink wrote: »

I see your not familiar with innuendo, perhaps you should read up on it.

I was reading up on it recently actually, in preparation for the World Innuendo Championships. I won't be competing myself but I have decided to enter my sister.

Turtwig

Why the feck do I keep reading 'Innuendo' as 'Impedimenta' has someone put a hex on me or something?

tawnyowl

strobe wrote: »

To be fair he asked her {paraphrasing from her vid} "Don't take this wrong, but I thought you were really interesting, would you like to come up to my room for some coffee to talk more". It's hardly asking if she wants to "get down and dirty".

Asking someone back to your place for coffee is often the modern equivalent of "Would you like to see my etchings?"

The Scientician

Oh no with Dawkins tainted who shall we worship as our leader?

The Scientician

tawnyowl wrote: »

Asking someone back to your place for coffee is often the modern equivalent of "Would you like to see my etchings?"

No "Giz a shot of your gee/mickey" is apparently, so say de kids anyway.

strobe

tawnyowl wrote: »

Asking someone back to your place for coffee is often the modern equivalent of "Would you like to see my etchings?"

I've seen American sitcoms. I was just pointing out that it wasn't as overt as asking 'want to get down and dirty'. I'm sure it was probably a round about proposition, but it was put forward in the most inoffensively worded way humanly imaginable.

tawnyowl

whatdoicare wrote: »

Wow, so, he asked yer one back for a coffee and she said no, he said okilydokily neighbourino and that's the end of the story??
Did I miss something?

Rebecca Watson mentioned in passing on a video, saying something to the effect that "it's creepy and it would be a good idea to not do it".

Turtwig

The Scientician wrote: »

Oh no with Dawkins tainted who shall we worship as our leader?

HAVEN'T YOU BEEN PAYING ATTENTION!!?:mad:

strobe

Malty_T wrote: »

HAVEN'T YOU BEEN PAYING ATTENTION!!?:mad:

That's very sexist Malty.

Kizzonian

is this serious? like is this actually a thing? do people actually care about this? maybe i dont understand what happened properly i dunno but this sounds like the most ridiculous topic i ever read about on boards.ie

MRBEAVER

George: (While preparing bicarb) She invites me up at twelve o clock at
night, for coffee. And I don't go up. "No thank you, I don't want coffee, it
keeps me up. Too late for me to drink coffee." I said this to her. People
this stupid shouldn't be allowed to live. I can't imagine what she must think
of me.

Jerry: She thinks you're a guy that doesn't like coffee.

George: She invited me up. Coffee's not coffee, coffee is sex.

Elaine: Maybe coffee was coffee.

George: Coffee's coffee in the morning, it's not coffee at twelve o clock at night.

tawnyowl

strobe wrote: »

I've seen American sitcoms. I was just pointing out that it wasn't as overt as asking 'want to get down and dirty'. I'm sure it was probably a round about proposition, but it was put forward in the most inoffensively worded way humanly imaginable.

The circumstances were also a factor:

• She said she was tired and wanted to go to her room.
• He said he wanted to have coffee with her. (Despite her saying she was tired.)
• It happened in a lift - quite enclosed.
• At 4am in the morning - not many people around then and CCTV might not be checked until morning.
• I think it was mentioned in one of the online discussions that she'd mentioned a problem with being hit on in email.
• I think there was also mention that he was with the group in the bar, but didn't talk to her then.

It's possible, though not likely, that he meant literally what he said. It's possible that he was propositioning her in a way he thought was non-threatening. It's possible that there was some other possibility.

Rebecca erred on the side of caution.

Kizzonian

tawnyowl wrote: »

The circumstances were also a factor:

• She said she was tired and wanted to go to her room.
• He said he wanted to have coffee with her. (Despite her saying she was tired.)
• It happened in a lift - quite enclosed.
• At 4am in the morning - not many people around then and CCTV might not be checked until morning.
• I think it was mentioned in one of the online discussions that she'd mentioned a problem with being hit on in email.
• I think there was also mention that he was with the group in the bar, but didn't talk to her then.

It's possible, though not likely, that he meant literally what he said. It's possible that he was propositioning her in a way he thought was non-threatening. It's possible that there was some other possibility.

Rebecca erred on the side of caution.

what are u insinuating? She was tired thats why he said coffee he didnt talk to her maybe he didnt have the courage there is absolutely nothing going on this is stupid wtf im leaving this thread now lol

Chuck Stone

OMFG I thought Richard Dawkins was infallible!

petebricquette

tawnyowl wrote: »

The circumstances were also a factor:

• She said she was tired and wanted to go to her room.
• He said he wanted to have coffee with her. (Despite her saying she was tired.)
• It happened in a lift - quite enclosed.
• At 4am in the morning - not many people around then and CCTV might not be checked until morning.
• I think it was mentioned in one of the online discussions that she'd mentioned a problem with being hit on in email.
• I think there was also mention that he was with the group in the bar, but didn't talk to her then.

It's possible, though not likely, that he meant literally what he said. It's possible that he was propositioning her in a way he thought was non-threatening. It's possible that there was some other possibility.

Rebecca erred on the side of caution.

Erred on the side of caution and now there's a huge furore over it. Regardless of her stance as a feminist, I see nothing in what the guy said for her or anyone to be upset over. Plenty of people get propositioned all of the time and because she's a public figure, it's a massive deal and sexism has come into it. Ridiculous.

With being famous comes these kinds of problems. The guy was probably just chancing his arm to spend a bit of time with someone he admired (as many have done before).

Regarding the bolded bit above: so bloody what? You're in the public eye; you'll occasionally have people flirting with you. If it were anyone else, it wouldn't even be an issue.

strobe

tawnyowl wrote: »

It's possible, though not likely, that he meant literally what he said. It's possible that he was propositioning her in a way he thought was non-threatening. It's possible that there was some other possibility.

I agree.





(that's just a wink btw, not a proposition. :pac:)

Turtwig

strobe wrote: »

That's very sexist Malty.

Happy Now?.:pac:

tawnyowl

petebricquette wrote: »

Erred on the side of caution and now there's a huge furore over it. Regardless of her stance as a feminist, I see nothing in what the guy said for her or anyone to be upset over. Plenty of people get propositioned all of the time and because she's a public figure, it's a massive deal and sexism has come into it. Ridiculous.

With being famous comes these kinds of problems. The guy was probably just chancing his arm to spend a bit of time with someone he admired (as many have done before).

Regarding the bolded bit above: so bloody what? You're in the public eye; you'll occasionally have people flirting with you. If it were anyone else, it wouldn't even be an issue.

Looking at http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/ it seems the emails she complains of went way beyond flirting - there were even threats of rape. She probably considered the possibility that it might have been one of those emailers she met.

If fame is the factor, has Richard Dawkins had a similar experience?

strobe

Lol, Jesus Tapdancing Christ that's disturbing.

Someone PM Dave! STAT!

gypsy_rose

it sounds to me like she's just totally sick of men hitting on her when she's at a conference where she wants to be taken seriously and to feel equal with those around her.

i am guessing (though feel free to correct me if im wrong) that there are usually less women than men at these conferences and so the women there feel in a minority.

since we can assume that most people there are heterosexual men the majority of people there can assert their opinions and interact without having to worry that the other people are thinking about other things besides what they are talking to them about i.e. science stuff etc. so while i disagree that the guy who allegedly came onto her did anything wrong, i can see her frustration at the possibilty of being seen as someone to **** rather than as an equal scientific colleague.

and honestly, i may be attacked here, but men just don't understand how it feels to try to talk to a group of men and have them not take you seriously because you are a woman even though your opinions are just as good as theirs. sexism is really veiled and hidden in our society but it is still most definitly alive and well

gypsy_rose

i do find it a bit sad though, what if a man meets a woman he genuinely just wants to hang out and be friends with, can he not ask her to go somewhere without worrying that she thinks hes coming onto her?

strobe

gypsy_rose wrote: »

i do find it a bit sad though, what if a man meets a woman he genuinely just wants to hang out and be friends with, can he not ask her to go somewhere without worrying that she thinks hes coming onto her?

Well that's the other side of the 'sexism' coin you spoke about in the post above that. Meh.

Turtwig

strobe wrote: »

Lol, Jesus Tapdancing Christ that's disturbing.

Someone PM Dave! STAT!

I was tempted to add extra hair too to to armpits and legs. I decided however it was disturbing enough as it was.:D

amacachi

So that's why I was annoyed by women propositioning me. I wasn't quite sure but I suppose deep down I knew it was because it showed that they thought of me as a lower-status person.

amacachi

Heh, Schrodinger's rapist, I'll be using that.

MrStuffins

4 pages of posts in this thread! All because some bloke chanced his arm in a lift! Jaysus!

Jimmy Bottlehead

Is the world actually so mental that a guy can't hit on a girl without it being some sort of pseudo-sexist issue?!

If this IS to be deemed as sexist or misogynistic, then surely there's an epidemic of misogyny every night of the week, in every pub, club and bar the world over...

Rev Hellfire

Seems to me Dawkins nailed it. (no pun intended)

mickoneill30

robindch wrote: »

PZ blogged about it, Dawkins sounded off in the comments section, Watson went nuclear. And now, it's gone viral, even earning a post on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy.

Now, I've no idea what happened in the elevator and I suspect that at least one of the participants had a few drinks aboard. But while Dawkin's initial sarcastic response was dumb and unhelpful, the ensuing mad fracas seems to be completely out of all proportion to what actually happened.

Anybody else been following this?

I'm probably missing something there. But it's a blog. One user has a name called Richard Dawkins, the post just before it is by chigau (happy) and the post before that is by "The Janine Is A Lonely Hunter, OM"

Is it possible at all that people are not using their real names on the comments section? Or is there any other reputable source saying this is real? If it was by Dawkins I'd imagine it'd be confirmed elsewhere.