Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Monty Burnz

fatmammycat wrote: »

Here is what you do when you find yourself in a lift with RW at 4am in the morning. Don't hit on her. Know how I know this? She said she doesn't like it. As to what every other woman the world over likes or find acceptable...er, atheist here, I don't believe I have godly powers to see into people's hearts.

And the problem here is that - some odd physics aside - presumably the guy who was hitting on her did not have an opportunity to see that video. So now his hitting on her is back in the realms of everyday, routine, and no big deal. Which is what RD was pointing out, which is what RW is (affecting) to be outraged by. This circle cannot be squared.

fatmammycat

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yeah, I think you are right there. Which makes it all the more mystifying why RW went crazy about it, unless it was purely for publicity.

Rightly or wrongly Dawkins is a big kahuna in the atheist world, being dismissed by him in such a manner probably angered her. It's not really difficult to understand. For the record, all the subsequent waffle about avoiding or boycotting Dawkins is totally ridiculous to me, one should be able to disagree on something with dismissing an entire body of work/person.

axer

fatmammycat wrote: »

Here is what you do when you find yourself in a lift with RW at 4am in the morning. Don't hit on her. Know how I know this? She said she doesn't like it. As to what every other woman the world over likes or find acceptable...er, atheist here, I don't believe I have godly powers to see into people's hearts.

Exactly and it is great to know the situation before ever attempting. Its just a pity that more people cannot see that the guy did nothing wrong so that the debate could be centred around how to ecourage more women to get involved in the atheist/skeptical movement.

fatmammycat

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And the problem here is that - some odd physics aside - presumably the guy who was hitting on her did not have an opportunity to see that video. So now his hitting on her is back in the realms of everyday, routine, and no big deal. Which is what RD was pointing out, which is what RW is (affecting) to be outraged by. This circle cannot be squared.

I think we're wandering into the realms of 'what-ifs'. let's not.

fatmammycat

axer wrote: »

Exactly and it is great to know the situation before ever attempting. Its just a pity that more people cannot see that the guy did nothing wrong so that the debate could be centred around how to ecourage more women to get involved in the atheist/skeptical movement.

Again, I don't think he was wrong for what he did. But neither do I think Watson saying she was uncomfortable by it, was wrong.

What I do think is wrong is when folk all fall out and stop listening to each other.

fatmammycat

I have to get back to work. Thanks for the polite conversations.

robindch

fatmammycat wrote: »

What I do think is wrong is when folk all fall out and stop listening to each other.

<cough> see my comment on "objectification" above

fatmammycat wrote: »

Again, I don't think he was wrong for what he did. But neither do I think Watson saying she was uncomfortable by it, was wrong.

I agree completely.

Well, can we all agree on that, folks?

expectationlost

fatmammycat wrote: »

She never said it was a big deal, or that the guy was wrong. She said it made her uncomfortable and would rather guys didn't do it to her. Clear?

and then went on talk about rape the oppression of women the world over

Morag

Whore as in Madonna/whore not as in hooker.


If she had of been sexually assaulted/raped then the exact same scrutiny and bias would have happened by the DPP and a case would most likely never have been brougth.

So women have to be careful about never ever ever letting themselves be seen as sexual even in a context they are controlling at the time as this is what happens.

As for the thong, seriously it was a joke between friends and those people are her friends.

Monty Burnz

Sharrow wrote: »

If she had of been sexually assaulted/raped then the exact same scrutiny and bias would have happened by the DPP and a case would most likely never have been brougth.

Nonsense.

strobe

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

How depressing that this has to be one of the few forums that turns into something more resembling a Bevis and Butt-head episode than a group of adult skeptics accepting that a number or women are trying to explain why there is a distinct lack of women in their movement, if not their forum.

Ah, Ickle...is it? You must be new here. Welcome to the A&A forum. Just to warn you, we sometimes take the piss out of things here. Hope you enjoy your stay.

robindch

Sharrow wrote: »

As for the thong, seriously it was a joke between friends and those people are her friends.

<Imagines the reaction to piccies of Dawkins' underpants scribbled with the names of conference attendees>

Galvasean

So many posts.... so little Aerosmith...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3Yrhv33Zb8

bipedalhumanoid

virmilitaris wrote: »

In short form.

I agree that the guy in the elevator made a mistake. It's not right to simply ask for sex like that straight away in those circumstances.

That's not a good start to your 'shrot form' view of events. The guy asked for coffee and talk. The conclusion that he wanted sex is what Rebecca Watson's filthy mind decided on its own, independent of anythign stated.

She keeps banging on about how tired she was... anyone cosider the possibility that that's why he offered a stimulant?

axer

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

That's not a good start to your 'shrot form' view of events. The guy asked for coffee and talk. The conclusion that he wanted sex is what Rebecca Watson's filthy mind decided on its own, independent of anythign stated.

She keeps banging on about how tired she was... anyone cosider the possibility that that's why he offered a stimulant?

Please just let this thread die.

magicbastarder

http://www.gabbysplayhouse.com/?p=1444

MagicMarker

character wrote: »

Nuts..my thoughts on the blog http://shaolinsybarite.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/dawkinswatson/
I'm unimpressed with the dawkins industry which is turning rationalism into a sixth form level debate mixed with a sort of quasi-religious fundamentalism. I ran into an American who works with him a few years ago, and she was like some sort of Moonie.

Cool story bro.

pH

character wrote: »

Nuts..my thoughts on the blog http://shaolinsybarite.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/dawkinswatson/
I'm unimpressed with the dawkins industry which is turning rationalism into a sixth form level debate mixed with a sort of quasi-religious fundamentalism. I ran into an American who works with him a few years ago, and she was like some sort of Moonie.

Or you could read this. Not just skim it, but read every word of it, and then ask yourself, important and terrible as Watson's lift encounter was, are the practices described in Fisk's piece not in every way more tragic, more terrible, and far more in need of being eradicated and fought against by the secular/atheist feminist movement. Or does this just happen to dark-skinned foreigners in places that speak funny and therefore not high on your or Watson's agenda? If only these women got into a lift and were hit on - you'd have something to say about that eh?

character

pH wrote: »

Or you could read this. Not just skim it, but read every word of it, and then ask yourself, important and terrible as Watson's lift encounter was, are the practices described in Fisk's piece not in every way more tragic, more terrible, and far more in need of being eradicated and fought against by the secular/atheist feminist movement. Or does this just happen to dark-skinned foreigners in places that speak funny and therefore not high on your or Watson's agenda? If only these women got into a lift and were hit on - you'd have something to say about that eh?

Or you could stop being patronising - "not just skim it, but read every word..."
Female circumcision is barbaric, nobody is disagreeing. My point is that bringing it into a simple discussion of etiquette was not necessary. It's a bit like you saying that you don't like broccoli and me shouting at you because children are starving.
And the racism insinuation is just pitiful.

pH

character wrote: »

It's a bit like you saying that you don't like broccoli and me shouting at you because children are starving.

At least we agree on that. The only difference is if I'm involved in an organisation like UNICEF and all I want to do every time I'm given a podium is talk about broccoli and how it should taste better THEN you'd have every right to shout at me because children are starving.

robindch

The CFI's organizing a conference in May next year on "Women in Secularism":

http://action.centerforinquiry.net/site/Calendar?id=101662&view=Detail

CFI wrote:

Join us on May 18-20, 2012, for the "Women in Secularism" conference, sponsored by CFI. This historic conference will discuss and celebrate the many contributions women have made to the secular movement, while critically examining both the successes and failures of secularism in addressing women's concerns.

Start Date: Friday, May 18, 2012
End Date: Sunday, May 20, 2012

Address:
Crystal City Marriott
1999 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22202
United States

mewso

Can't make it. Heading to the "People in Secularism" conference.

sponsoredwalk

Now that a serious issue unworthy of abject parody has been brought up:

There's only one thing that the conference can justifiably discuss, & that's
the failures of the recent western secularist (rational brigade) tradition as
regards women, & the hilarious hypocrisy of it all. I mean if the insanity
that sprang forth from the Watson debacle sprang forth from something
so ridiculous you just know it had been fermenting for quite a while, just
on the surface of things without scratching deeper. Without clouding the
issue by elevators, I remember reading a heck-load of nasty things about
the undercurrent of sexism etc... & recent articles (found btw via another
thought provoking PZ Meyers sexism article, not as thought provoking as
this one, but still offering enough food for thought to justify getting your
atheist-leader-approved PUA groove going) indicate there are many front
on which this argument is being made.

Any successes for women they wish to discuss will no doubt be extremely
overblown & appear grandiose in the context, I mean the very idea of
weighing the successes against the claims being made is a horrendous
thought, not only does it insult people who work for equality regardless of
their secularism/religion but I mean the very idea of bragging in this
manner just reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaPHPQt91w8

So what say you people? Is it a cynical farce to even try offer two sides
to this story? Are the sexism, boys-club etc... etc... claims overblown or
is there a valid point being made, or perhaps the point still isn't being
made strongly enough & there's still a hell of a long road down to be
trotted down?

You'll note I tend to agree that there's something wrong but that's just
based on what I read back when this thread was at it's full glory, idk,
hence the question!

UDP

Please let this thread rest in peace.

Elliemental

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.

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

He wasn't dismissing it. He was putting the incident into perspective, and that is totally different.

Dawkins is right, in that comment at least. A woman was approached by a man, and he offered her some coffee. She said no, and he respected that. Big deal! Even I get the odd proposition every once in a while. Women like that embarass me, tbh. Stiffen the sinews FFS!

strobe

The thread... oh dear God the thread... It has risen!!!! :eek:

For the love of God Robin, why?

...Why!?!?

robindch

Meanwhile, christians (going to an 'ascension conference' of all things) seem worried about a christian elevatorgate:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/04/06/at-christian-conference-boys-must-use-the-escalators/

Dades

So at an ascension conference boys and girls must use different ways to ascend? :pac:

Galvasean

I'm not sober. what the hell is going on????

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm not sober. what the hell is going on????

Nothing.

Now keep it that way and stay out of the elevator this time.