Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

bipedalhumanoid

robindch wrote: »

I assume you're referring to Luce Irigaray's claim that E=mc^2 is a "sexed" equation.

Yep, that's the one.

Galvasean

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

I figured it was only a matter of time before the anti-science feminism made an appearance.

E=MCC is sexist you know. So is mathematics.

Mathematics? Why, that sounds a bit like MANamathics!!!! :eek:
At least the word 'herstory' never took hold...

Sarky

robindch wrote: »

I assume you're referring to Luce Irigaray's claim that E=mc^2 is a "sexed" equation. Thusly:Further deep, sensual probings lead Irigaray to the conclusion that fluid mechanics is also "sexed", as Alan Sokol noted:

What the hell did I just read?

Zombrex

Luce Irigaray wrote:

Is E=Mc² a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged that which goes faster.

Jesus H Tapdancing Christ

General Relativity

Originally Posted by Luce Irigaray
Is E=Mc² a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged that which goes faster.

WHAT!?!

robindch

^^^ Think that guy in the top GIF is "privileging speed" while the guy in the next pic is standing notably, er, erect.

Typical ruddy males.

Turtwig

Have to bump this thread to include this.
A video of PZ Myer's moderating techniques.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwK84v1KmRM

Rev Hellfire

This stuff is so last year, we've forgotten who these people are and moved on.

Waking-Dreams

Yeah, that whole epic saga is going to continue indefinitely but perhaps it’s best not giving them any more attention. If your “movement” is not being recognised or discussed in certain circles, that can be a clear indicator that no one really takes you seriously.

robindch

Whatever else about PZ, that "Top Ten Religious Discoveries of 2012" hits the mark!

bipedalhumanoid

I stopped bothering with pharyngula when pharyngula stopped having anything interesting or worthwhile to say. There are plenty of better blogs out there.

Newaglish

I read a thread on boards the other day where posters were accused of mansplaining and asked to "check their privilege" without a hint of irony.

It made me very sad.

bipedalhumanoid

Newaglish wrote: »

I read a thread on boards the other day where posters were accused of mansplaining and asked to "check their privilege" without a hint of irony.

It made me very sad.

Nothing but ad hominem fallacy and a cop out.

Brian Shanahan

Zombrex wrote: »

Jesus H Tapdancing Christ

General Relativity wrote: »

WHAT!?!

That's postmodernism for you. If you want to see more read Francis Wheen's How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World. When you're not being outraged you're puking from the laughter.

robindch

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Yeah, that whole epic saga is going to continue indefinitely [...]

Without wishing to disinter the whole manufactroversy again, here's the latest:

The CFI in the US organized a conference a few weeks back entitled "Women in Secularism 2" to which a range of relevant speakers were invited. Ron Lindsay, CEO of the CFI, opened the conference with a talk in which he referred to, and openly disagreed with, the use of disjunctive language and specifically, the idea of "privilege", to shut down legitimate debate and comment. In reply, Watson said she was was "disappointed and disillusioned" with the CFI leadership for saying that. Lindsay responded to that, saying that Watson "inhabits an alternate universe" and that her reply was so dishonest, that it could well have issued from the "North Korean government", a comment for which he later apologized (and notes that the board of the CFI is to decide whether Lindsay was out of order in what he said; in which case, he may well be asked to stand down). In response to that, Watson and another prominent Atheism Plusser, Greta Christina, have called, in sharp, uncompromising tones, for a general boycott of the CFI.

An action which seems, very sadly, to demonstrate Lindsay's exact point beyond any doubt.

Anyhow, this weekend, Atheist Ireland are holding a similar conference entitled Empowering Women Through Secularism, at which Watson will be speaking. It's at the Alexander Hotel which achieved a certain notoriety two years ago for containing a now well-known elevator.

I hope the conference goes well -- I'm out of the country while it's on -- but despite Michael's recent patient, generous response to people who've contacted him in the aftermath of CFI's conference, I can't help but be worried that it may not go as planned.

SebBerkovich

The event sounds really interesting, I'll be tring to go along to it.

but i'm just gonna continue to bury my head in the sand about whatever personal issue Watson, Dawkins and others have with each other. I don't see why anyone needs to pick a side on these things.

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

I hope the conference goes well -- I'm out of the country while it's on -- but despite Michael's recent patient, generous response to people who've contacted him in the aftermath of CFI's conference, I can't help but be worried that it may not go as planned.

Seen him on VB there. He's already gone grey, so he'll be spared that much at least.

coffee_cake

Maybe i should go and corner her in a lift

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

Maybe i should go and corner her in a lift

Don't forget to ask her for a coffee.

kiffer

Jernal wrote: »

Don't forget to ask her for a coffee.

Never ask anyone for coffee, if they want coffee then they can ask for it...

Edit: wait now I'm confused... preposterous preposition panic...
Neve ask of they'd like a coffee?
Never offer coffee if they want some then they'll ask?
Trivialising late night inappropriate advances?

Sarky

bluewolf wrote: »

Maybe i should go and corner her in a lift

Oh sweet Jesus, please do.

condra

When is the "empowering men" conference?

keane2097

Maybe I'm missing some backstory or other (I don't know the particulars of the elevator thing) but Watson's response to the original talk seems bizarre.

SebBerkovich

condra wrote: »

When is the "empowering men" conference?

I think there was one about 195,000 years ago... seems to have done more harm than good.

condra

Yeah all those advances in science were pretty horrific. Stupid men.

pH

robindch wrote: »

I hope the conference goes well -- I'm out of the country while it's on -- but despite Michael's recent patient, generous response to people who've contacted him in the aftermath of CFI's conference, I can't help but be worried that it may not go as planned.

I'm not sure why? It seems like a one sided let's get the A+ radfem gang together for another international junket - where is Paula Kirby? Harriet Hall? Abbie Smith? etc. It's the same old PZ/Watson/Nugent/Benson/A+/FTB side of the debate doing a cosy love in. These other women, because they're seen to be on the "other side" of this debate aren't welcome?

My only interest in it is how well they will stick to the actual topics, for those that remember this all kicked off when Dawkins had the temerity to suggest that maybe the exact nuances of when a college educated white western woman could and couldn't be asked for coffee wasn't the highest priority issue that the atheist/secular/feminist movement had on its todo list.

Since then he's been proven spectacularly wrong, as a gaggle of well off white western women (and their male supporters) have spent 2 years going on about "privilege", seemingly oblivious and uncaring of the "privilege" they possess over possible 99.99% of the world and obsessed about the extra privilege possessed by white western educated men. They have had little or nothing to say on the real issues that secular feminism should be addressing.

Here's a recent "I'm out" from an ex ScientologistSecular woman
http://mycatsaremygods.com/2013/06/16/i-resign-my-membership-from-secular-woman/

I'm not a member of AI, but since Nugent's awful "We're all misogynist (well except moi obliviously)" letter, I still haven't heard anything from AI about an investigation into this rampant discrimination and abuse in their organisation and at their conferences.

robindch

keane2097 wrote: »

[...] I'm missing some backstory or other [...]

Lucky you

If you're interested in the details, pop back to the first post in this thread and see how far your can make it.

keane2097

robindch wrote: »

Lucky you

If you're interested in the details, pop back to the first post in this thread and see how far your can make it.

I did that before and had to stop because I didn't know who any of the protagonists were and it all seemed very inane.

It might be easier to just ask if I'm right in thinking Watson in this instance Watson has had a freak attack over a tame enough speech? I could be reading everything wrong here admittedly.

silentrust

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.

I too am a little puzzled by the priorities of western feminists who will spend weeks agonizing over supposedly sexist jokes in a lads magazines but are distinctly mute over issues like war rape in the Congo.

The answer is that it's not wrong to invite someone back to your room. If a woman had asked a man up, this wouldn't even have made headlines.

pH

keane2097 wrote: »

I did that before and had to stop because I didn't know who any of the protagonists were and it all seemed very inane.

It might be easier to just ask if I'm right in thinking Watson in this instance Watson has had a freak attack over a tame enough speech? I could be reading everything wrong here admittedly.

The initial spark was Rebecca Watson's reporting of a man asking her for coffee in a elevator. However the flame was set when 2 females made slightly critical "responses" to Watson's original vlog - and they weren't "OMG STFU bitch" they were polite reasoned - "I think you're wrong here Rebecca" replies.

Watson then gave a keynote speech at a college and she veered off topic and castigated one of the students involved from the podium. Many criticised Watson for abusing her speech to take some sort of petty revenge on this student, PZ Meyers then added a blog entry saying something like she had every right to dis her - and in the comments of the blog Dawkins made his Muslima comments - things have kept going from there for 2 years.

On a side note - has anyone got a link to these open letters than Nugent is referring to?