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.

Options
1…6791112…65

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    King Mob wrote: »
    And in the process of saying "it was no big deal" Dawkins made pretty sexist and hypocritical statements.
    Sorry, I may be missing part of the story here - the only thing I've seen from Dawkins was the satirical post on the PZ blog where he contrasted her situation with the situation of women elsewhere.


  • Options
    #243
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    He did?? I must have missed that bit - can you detail it or link it please? It might put a different complexion on the story.
    Sorry should have typed "sexual abuse" in reference to the female circumcision.
    Still pretty inappropriate.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Well clearly anyone making such threats is a psycho, it's indefensible. But there's still a world of difference between morons emailing that type of rubbish to you and the awful things that happen to women in less developed parts of the world.
    Yes there is. And Rebecca Watson isn't trying to, or has said anything that lessens these things.
    But there is no plausible reason at all for why they would mean that she is not allowed to mention lesser stuff or call out sexism she experiences.
    Nor does the nastier stuff out in the world make the stuff she or any other person experiences any less hurtful or infuriating.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I guess they are inferring it due to her linking the event to rape and sexual assault in her blog post.
    But she doesn't actually link the incident to any in that subsequent article.
    The people inferring the connection are doing all by themselves and using at as excuse to ignore her points.
    No where has she ever stated or implied that the guy in the lift was a predator or that all men are, contrary to what some posters her are saying she believes.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Sorry, I may be missing part of the story here - the only thing I've seen from Dawkins was the satirical post on her blog where he contrasted her situation with the situation of women elsewhere.
    Well the first post, the point of which is that Watson doesn't really have the right to complain is the first example of his sexism. There is more as he accuses her of over reacting and being overly sensitive.
    The second post shows hypocrisy because he refers to the incident as "just words".
    Just like how teaching kids religion is "just words" yet he considers this child abuse.


  • Options
    #244
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    King Mob wrote: »
    Sorry should have typed "sexual abuse" in reference to the female circumcision.
    Still pretty inappropriate.
    I don't think that was inappropriate though - he was satirising the episode by contrasting really bad stuff with stuff that really wasn't all that bad. In that context, it was totally appropriate.
    King Mob wrote: »
    But there is no plausible reason at all for why they would mean that she is not allowed to mention lesser stuff or call out sexism she experiences.
    Nor does the nastier stuff out in the world make the stuff she or any other person experiences any less hurtful or infuriating.
    No dispute there.
    King Mob wrote: »
    But she doesn't actually link the incident to any in that subsequent article.
    The people inferring the connection are doing all by themselves and using at as excuse to ignore her points.
    No where has she ever stated or implied that the guy in the lift was a predator or that all men are, contrary to what some posters her are saying she believes.
    Yeah, I think there's an element of the wrong people copping the blame for points other people have made. For example, this point - not made by SkepChick - frustrates me:
    When there’s no way to know, you err on the side of safety. And what makes this worse is that most men don’t understand this, so women are constantly put into situations ranging from uncomfortable to downright scary.
    Put even more simply: this wasn’t a guy chewing gum at her. This was a potential sexual assault.
    The idea that somebody regards any time I'm in an elevator with a woman as a 'potential sexual assault' is really depressing, and demeaning of me as a man. This is similar to the situation where every man is regarded as a potential paedophile, and not being allowed to take photos of your own kids at the school sports day and so forth.

    I already cross the road to avoid single women walking alone if I meet them on a quiet street so as not to accidentally intimidate them. Guilt by association, huh?


  • Options
    #245
    CiaranMT
    Registered Users Posts: 4,092 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    Christ. Talk about a thread mirroring the very pile of much-ado-about-nothing which makes up its topic.


  • Options
    #246
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    CiaranMT wrote: »
    Christ. Talk about a thread mirroring the very pile of much-ado-about-nothing which makes up its topic.
    Indeed. Some people getting very het up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I don't think that was inappropriate though - he was satirising the episode by contrasting really bad stuff with stuff that really wasn't all that bad. In that context, it was totally appropriate.
    Well you don't think it's inappropriate, but then it's not being used to portray you as being overly sensitive and having your point taken out of context then ignored.
    And of course you haven't written extensively on female circumcision and other religiously fueled sexism either.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    No dispute there.
    So then you surely realise how Dawkins comments are a bit sexist and hypocritical.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Yeah, I think there's an element of the wrong people copping the blame for points other people have made. For example, this point - not made by SkepChick - frustrates me:

    The idea that somebody regards any time I'm in an elevator with a woman as a 'potential sexual assault' is really depressing, and demeaning of me as a man. This is similar to the situation where every man is regarded as a potential paedophile, and not being allowed to take photos of your own kids at the school sports day and so forth.

    I already cross the road to avoid single women walking alone if I meet them on a quiet street so as not to accidentally intimidate them. Guilt by association, huh?
    But that's the thing, no is accusing men as a whole of being rapists-in-potentia that's the strawman being made by people so they can ignore the point.

    Rebecca Watson wasn't uncomfortable because it was a man in a lift.
    She was uncomfortable because it was a man in a lift at 4am, alone and just after he had propositioned her.

    Everything else attributed to her beyond this one point has been the construct of other people inferring stuff that simply isn't there.

    It's blown up because Dawkins said stupid, sexist and hypocritical stuff and some people are straining themselves to ignore this.


  • Options
    #248
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    King Mob wrote: »

    Everything else attributed to her beyond this one point has been the construct of other people inferring stuff that simply isn't there.

    .

    She complained of the approach that she did not appreciate being 'sexually objectified', did she not?


  • Options
    #249
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Nodin wrote: »
    She complained of the approach that she did not appreciate being 'sexually objectified', did she not?

    she said-
    ""Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don't do that. You know, I don't really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and—don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner."


  • Options
    #250
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well you don't think it's inappropriate, but then it's not being used to portray you as being overly sensitive and having your point taken out of context then ignored.
    And of course you haven't written extensively on female circumcision and other religiously fueled sexism either.
    That's shifting the point somewhat. What he said was appropriate in satirising her position. You are stating that satirising her position was inappropriate - you are entitled to think so.
    King Mob wrote: »
    So then you surely realise how Dawkins comments are a bit sexist and hypocritical.
    No, I disagree on this. You can argue about his sensitivity, but I don't perceive that he was sexist.
    King Mob wrote: »
    But that's the thing, no is accusing men as a whole of being rapists-in-potentia that's the strawman being made by people so they can ignore the point.
    This person is, for a start. I just quoted it for you!
    King Mob wrote: »
    Rebecca Watson wasn't uncomfortable because it was a man in a lift.
    She was uncomfortable because it was a man in a lift at 4am, alone and just after he had propositioned her.
    But I don't know if anyone is arguing that she wasn't entitled to feel uncomfortable. I certainly am not.


  • Options
    #251
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    she said-
    ""Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don't do that. You know, I don't really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and—don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner."

    "Richard Dawkins believes I should be a good girl and just shut up about being sexually objectified because it doesn’t bother him. Thanks, wealthy old heterosexual white man! "
    http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    ...don't know what Ricardo being a whitey has to do with it either, tbh, but thats an argument for another day.


  • Options
    #253
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Nodin wrote: »
    "Richard Dawkins believes I should be a good girl and just shut up about being sexually objectified because it doesn’t bother him. Thanks, wealthy old heterosexual white man! "
    http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/

    I'm was talking about what she said originally, in the first video.


  • Options
    #254
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    "don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner."

    Hmm...if she had just said that to the guy who invited her for coffee, or if he heard her saying it in conversation a few minutes before, that would put a different complexion on things.


  • Options
    #255
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Hmm...if she had just said that to the guy who invited her for coffee, or if he heard her saying it in conversation a few minutes before, that would put a different complexion on things.

    Indeed it would.


  • Options
    #256
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    I'm was talking about what she said originally, in the first video.


    ...which was some whinge about being "sexualised" because some dude made some sort of possible approach to her. The words precious, precocious and shrill all come to mind, and none in a good context.


  • Options
    #257
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...which was some whinge about being "sexualised" because some dude made some sort of possible approach to her. The words precious, precocious and shrill all come to mind, and none in a good context.

    I'm bored of this now, if you have an issue with what she originally said, email her, I'm sure she'll be thrilled to hear from you.


  • Options
    #258
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    That's shifting the point somewhat. What he said was appropriate in satirising her position. You are stating that satirising her position was inappropriate - you are entitled to think so.
    Not what I was saying. I am saying that using sexual abuse like circumcision to tell a woman she's being too sensitive is really not appropriate.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    No, I disagree on this. You can argue about his sensitivity, but I don't perceive that he was sexist.
    Again you might have to explain how an old white dude telling a woman to suck it up and just deal with it in silence isn't sexist.
    And remember I'm also accusing him of hypocrisy? Do you agree that his comments were hypocritical?
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    This person is, for a start. I just quoted it for you!
    Well one Phil Plait isn't saying that the guy in the lift was going to sexually assault anyone, just commenting that Dawkins idiotically equating being annoyed and being concerned for you safety.
    Nowhere does he say that all men are potential rapists, I would honestly be shocked and confused if he did.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    But I don't know if anyone is arguing that she wasn't entitled to feel uncomfortable. I certainly am not.
    Dawkins specifically is.
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2011/07/dawkins_watson2.gif


  • Options
    #259
    smiles302
    Registered Users Posts: 463 ✭✭smiles302


    The problem is, why does she feel uncomfortable? That's the issue a lot of us are taking issue at, I think. As I say, the thought that my being alone in a lift with someone else late at night makes them uncomfortable offends me. The reason they are uncomfortable is because they don't trust me and they fear the worst. They feel I might be a sexual predator, and so they treat me as such until proven otherwise.

    Watching all of this unfold takes me back to being 15/16 and first correcting someone for referring to me as a he in a reply on a science-y forum. Someone replied asking for pictures to prove it. I assumed it was a joke but had no idea how to reply appropriately so left it.
    I came back a day later to find 5 pages of replies arguing over whether or not I could actually be a woman. All I had done was he she.

    Are there really people who take from this elevators are just entirely inappropriate places to talk to somebody?

    Some things people do are really weird or simply socially inappropriate for the time or place. When people do weird things the other people in the situation usually feel uncomfortable with no idea what to say.

    Recent example from my life. I was catching a train. Happened to bump into a man on the platform. He stopped suddenly, I wasn't watching were I was going. We had the usual 5/10 second conversation of sorry my bad! I saw him get onto the train two carriages ahead of me... I had hopped onto the nearest one.
    The train was practically empty. We were both quite early and possibly the first onto the train. 5 minutes later he arrives at the seat across from me. Says "Well hi again", I acknowledge and go back to reading my book. Thinking this is a bit odd.
    About ten minutes later he tells me I am intelligent looking and can he buy me a glass of wine from the snack-trolley.

    I wasn't uncomfortable with the situation because he was male. I was uncomfortable because it's weird to offer a stranger wine on a train at lunch time.

    Had he started with hello, my name is... *insert general conversation starter* and then asked to join me for a coffee I would have happily said yes or politely said no depending on whether he appeared like an interesting person to talk to.

    If I was in an elevator at 4 am and your second sentence to me is an offer to go back to your room. You don't sound like you are interested in conversation. You don't appear interested in me for anything more than my appearance. I'm wary of you not because you're male but because you're coming across as someone who sees women as sex objects.
    You are quick to judge strangers. Normally people put their best foot forward when meeting new people. This was a bad call on his part. He messed up. She called him out on it. She didn't name him.

    Had elevator-guy began with hello, began a conversation, mentioned something he actually found interesting in her talk/blog/etc then asked her if they could get a chance to talk further or then ask her back for a cup of coffee. Then he would not be creepy. The way he went about asking her was creepy. Not the fact that he had the nerve to ask her.

    When you are in a coffee shop or in an office an offer for coffee sounds like an invitation to have a conversation. When it's 4 am and the coffee is at your house or hotel room it is weird not to be aware that that doesn't sound like an offer for a conversation. And it is weird to ask somebody for a one night stand after only speaking two sentences.


  • Options
    #260
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    King Mob wrote: »
    Not what I was saying. I am saying that using sexual abuse like circumcision to tell a woman she's being too sensitive is really not appropriate.
    Ok, then you're just wrong. Was it inappropriate of Jonathan Swift to suggest that starving Irish people should eat their babies? :confused:
    King Mob wrote: »
    Again you might have to explain how an old white dude telling a woman to suck it up and just deal with it in silence isn't sexist.
    And remember I'm also accusing him of hypocrisy? Do you agree that his comments were hypocritical?

    No, I don't.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Well one Phil Plait isn't saying that the guy in the lift was going to sexually assault anyone, just commenting that Dawkins idiotically equating being annoyed and being concerned for you safety.
    Nowhere does he say that all men are potential rapists, I would honestly be shocked and confused if he did.
    He says that being in a lift with a random man is 'a potential assault scenario'. I don't see how you can interpret that any other way than saying that any random man may rape you. In a sense, he's right - but then any time someone is holding a knife, there is a potential stabbing scenario. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the time though, the knife-wielder is simply having some dinner.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Dawkins specifically is.
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2011/07/dawkins_watson2.gif
    We must each have a different interpretation of the phrase, 'If she felt his behaviour was creepy, that was her privilege'.


  • Options
    #261
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    I'm bored of this now, if you have an issue with what she originally said, email her, I'm sure she'll be thrilled to hear from you.

    No, I'd imagine that I'd be labelled "mysogynist" and disregarded on those grounds.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Ok, then you're just wrong. Was it inappropriate of Jonathan Swift to suggest that starving Irish people should eat their babies? :confused:
    Don't be obtuse Monty, it's beneath you.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    No, I don't.
    Why? He said it's "just words". Sorta like how religious indoctrination is "just words". Or how religiously motivated hate speech is "just words".
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    He says that being in a lift with a random man is 'a potential assault scenario'. I don't see how you can interpret that any other way than saying that any random man may rape you. In a sense, he's right - but then any time someone is holding a knife, there is a potential stabbing scenario. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the time though, the knife-wielder is simply having some dinner.
    But again you're misrepresenting the situation.
    It wasn't a guy in a lift.
    It was a guy in a lift, at 4am, in a new country, alone and just after he'd propositioned her.
    Why do I have to repeat this?

    Maybe if that person with a knife is alone with you at 4am, you'd be a bit uncomfortable with them too...
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    We must each have a different interpretation of the phrase, 'If she felt his behaviour was creepy, that was her privilege'.
    And you must have missed the part where he goes on to explain how she's being foolish and overly sensitive for expressing her discomfort...

    Seriously the level of denial and avoiding and outright sexism displayed by some people on this thread is disappointing.
    I'm bowing out.


  • Options
    #263
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    King Mob wrote: »
    I'm bowing out.
    Yeah, I think we are in 'agree to disagree' territory. :)


  • Options
    #264
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    —don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner."

    It sounds like he might have said it as a subtle joke then. Possibly inappropiate but either way she's blown this way out of proportion.

    If I was at a bar and some feminist started spouting on about how she hates it when guys buy her drinks, i'd probably offer to buy her a drink.


  • Options
    #265
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Yeah, that's likely to happen all right. And for the very last time, 'she' wasn't the one that blew it up afterwards.


  • Options
    #266
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Actually this will be my last comment on this subject- and yah, it's not really a comment, but it pretty much covers what I feel this subject needs to cover. http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/


  • Options
    #267
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    it pretty much covers what I feel this subject needs to cover. http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/
    From which:
    atheistexperience wrote:
    Larger group of Rebecca defenders jump in, including PZ, Jen at Blag Hag, and many others, chiding the guys for not getting it and pointing to a very real problem of acculturated sexism that infects the skeptical/atheist community just as it does the wide world.
    I'll be honest here -- I'm not sure that I like being wide-brush-painted like that. If I'm guilty by association at least, and if not by existence too, of "acculturated sexism", then I'd like to see some evidence so I can either (a) refute the claim, or (b) do something about it.

    In fact, I can't help but point out that dividing the world up into males who are "culturally sexist", and women who presumably aren't, is inherently an sexist act itself.

    Some moderation and, dare I say, introspection out in the blogosphere might help to reduce the temperature all round.


  • Options
    #268
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Yep.


  • Options
    #269
    Gambler
    Registered Users Posts: 1,825 ✭✭✭Gambler


    I haven't read the whole thread so this may have already been asked:

    What I really really REALLY want to know is... Which one of you was it that asked her to your room for coffee :P

    Bet you're sorry you did now - just look what you started!


  • Options
    #270
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    Actually this will be my last comment on this subject- and yah, it's not really a comment, but it pretty much covers what I feel this subject needs to cover. http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/
    I will make my position so clear even a gerbil with dyslexia should be able to get it, because this is the Internet, and it appears one's words can be wildly misunderstood and misrepresented here. (Who knew?) In six words: Dawkins is wrong, Rebecca is right. Dawkins' point — which is fundamentally no different than telling atheists that in a world where the godless are burned at the stake, we're being kind of petty to complain about "little" things like God in the Pledge or creationism in the classroom — is simply wrong. He's as wrong as a wrong thing with the word wrong written on it by someone who can't spell

    Exunctly - you wanna see real hypocrisy, look no further. Don't listen to that old man in the vatican with his hypocritical archaic views - look at me doing exactly the same. Genius, Dick, just genius.
    robindch wrote: »
    From which:I'll be honest here -- I'm not sure that I like being wide-brush-painted like that....

    Perhaps it'll become another of those new fangled brush-stroke terms, like dem der "feminists" or feminazi, that are getting so popular these days - in lieu of having to go to the effort of discussing issues minus the assumption of hive-mind?

    Do they also mention walk-outs? Team Rebecca and Team Dick like it's something out of hello magazine. Cringe. Crazy stuff altogether.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Gambler wrote: »
    I haven't read the whole thread so this may have already been asked:

    What I really really REALLY want to know is... Which one of you was it that asked her to your room for coffee :P

    Bet you're sorry you did now - just look what you started!

    It was tea actually, I hate coffee.


    Actually I wonder what someone would think to being asked back for tea and what specific sexual deviancy that would entail.


Advertisement