Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

A forum to talk about other sites and things you've found in the jungle that is the internet.

Please take a moment to read the rationalia guidelines: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449
Post Reply
User avatar
Robert_S
Cookie Monster
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Robert_S » Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:55 am

I think this is a pretty minor incident, but with great potential. So I'll just use this time to try to figure out ways to keep the drama going when it looks like everybody's about to get over it.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P

The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Gallstones » Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:52 am

Over it? This event, yes. One's real life, no. Not ever.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
Atheist-Lite
Formerly known as Crumple
Posts: 8745
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:35 pm
About me: You need a jetpack? Here, take mine. I don't need a jetpack this far away.
Location: In the Galactic Hub, Yes That One !!!
Contact:

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Atheist-Lite » Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:55 am

Robert_S wrote:I think this is a pretty minor incident, but with great potential. So I'll just use this time to try to figure out ways to keep the drama going when it looks like everybody's about to get over it.
Pity 'The News of the Screws' bust a gasket 'cos this new side to dawkins untamed wit is really quite newsworthy in a British tabloid kind of way. Anyone hacked his mobile to find out what he really thinks? :smoke:
nxnxm,cm,m,fvmf,vndfnm,nm,f,dvm,v v vmfm,vvm,d,dd vv sm,mvd,fmf,fn ,v fvfm,

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Gallstones » Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:11 am

Let me explain what it is like.
Being treated like a thing, a non-human; told that you and your feelings don't matter--you don't matter. You are just a thing remember? Barely a thing at that.

I was asked "Do you want to die?" And at the time all I could think of was no, I didn't want to die. Maybe I could get lucky and only be raped and only be beaten up some--but I might live. Imagine that, hoping that all that all that would happen was that you would be raped and beaten up some if only you could live. I was 15 and I didn't want to die yet.

I survived but you are never the same. There is a brand on you after that; in your demeanor, your affect, your way of being that notifies others who would do the same that you are vulnerable. And even decent men see the brand and avoid you.

So come up behind me, be a little too aggressive, treat me like I owe you because you are interested and you will see an hysterical harpy nut. Nowadays I might fucking shoot you dead.

I have but two criteria, and I do not compromise on those two criteria. If you can't meet those two criteria then yes, I am frigid--you betcha. I would be truly nuts to volunteer for more of the same treatment--don'tcha think?
Last edited by Gallstones on Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Gallstones » Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:13 am

Crumple wrote:
Robert_S wrote:I think this is a pretty minor incident, but with great potential. So I'll just use this time to try to figure out ways to keep the drama going when it looks like everybody's about to get over it.
Pity 'The News of the Screws' bust a gasket 'cos this new side to dawkins untamed wit is really quite newsworthy in a British tabloid kind of way. Anyone hacked his mobile to find out what he really thinks? :smoke:

Can you translate this into English?
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
Atheist-Lite
Formerly known as Crumple
Posts: 8745
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:35 pm
About me: You need a jetpack? Here, take mine. I don't need a jetpack this far away.
Location: In the Galactic Hub, Yes That One !!!
Contact:

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Atheist-Lite » Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:19 am

Gallstones wrote:
Crumple wrote:
Robert_S wrote:I think this is a pretty minor incident, but with great potential. So I'll just use this time to try to figure out ways to keep the drama going when it looks like everybody's about to get over it.
Pity 'The News of the Screws' bust a gasket 'cos this new side to dawkins untamed wit is really quite newsworthy in a British tabloid kind of way. Anyone hacked his mobile to find out what he really thinks? :smoke:

Can you translate this into English?
No, why would I bother to render myself meaningless for the masses? :smoke:
nxnxm,cm,m,fvmf,vndfnm,nm,f,dvm,v v vmfm,vvm,d,dd vv sm,mvd,fmf,fn ,v fvfm,

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Gallstones » Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:27 am

Crumple wrote:
Gallstones wrote:
Crumple wrote:
Robert_S wrote:I think this is a pretty minor incident, but with great potential. So I'll just use this time to try to figure out ways to keep the drama going when it looks like everybody's about to get over it.
Pity 'The News of the Screws' bust a gasket 'cos this new side to dawkins untamed wit is really quite newsworthy in a British tabloid kind of way. Anyone hacked his mobile to find out what he really thinks? :smoke:

Can you translate this into English?
No, why would I bother to render myself meaningless for the masses? :smoke:
Why bother pretending to communicate at all then--cause you're not. I have no fucking idea what you are saying and suspect that you are too intoxicated to be comprehensible.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
Atheist-Lite
Formerly known as Crumple
Posts: 8745
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:35 pm
About me: You need a jetpack? Here, take mine. I don't need a jetpack this far away.
Location: In the Galactic Hub, Yes That One !!!
Contact:

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Atheist-Lite » Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:55 am

The messenger is dead, do you want his horse? :read:
nxnxm,cm,m,fvmf,vndfnm,nm,f,dvm,v v vmfm,vvm,d,dd vv sm,mvd,fmf,fn ,v fvfm,

User avatar
hadespussercats
I've come for your pants.
Posts: 18586
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:27 am
About me: Looks pretty good, coming out of the back of his neck like that.
Location: Gotham
Contact:

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by hadespussercats » Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:56 am

Animavore wrote:Richard Dawkins was once sexually assaulted according to TGD.
Well, he said he was groped by a headmaster or schoolteacher (I'd have to check which), and that the whole experience felt more icky than traumatizing. Not sure if that's the sort of experience Gallstones was alluding to.

Also, I watched Rebecca Watson's video, and her response to the proposition in the elevator wasn't to throw a hissy fit-- she calmly said, "Guys, don't do that," then explained why it bothered her to be propositioned in an elevator in a foreign country at four in the morning by a man who had supposedly been listening to her talk for hours about how she didn't like being sexualized or objectified.

She didn't report him to the police, she didn't call him a rapist-- she said he "didn't get it." And he clearly didn't get it.

And I'm sorry, but men, women get raped in elevators all the time. In fact, just two weeks ago there were a spate of such assaults right in my neighborhood. An elevator is a closed area, they were alone-- it's completely not unreasonable for her to be uncomfortable with him in that situation. And addressing that concern is different from saying that all men are potential rapists.

Sure, most men don't rape. But when you're alone with one in a foreign country, in an enclosed space, and you've just left a bar, so he might be drunk (or you might be), and he comes on to you, frankly, you're an idiot if you aren't wary of him.

Just think what everyone would have said if she'd gone back to his room with him, expecting coffee and talk, and gotten raped instead?
"Well, what was she doing there at four in the morning? what did she think was going to happen?"
Out of the people that ever were, almost all of them are dead.
There are way more dead people, and you're all gonna die
and then you're gonna be dead for way longer than you're alive.
Like that's mostly what you're ever gonna be.
You're just dead people that didn't die yet.
--Louis C.K.
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.

Listen. No one listens. Meow.

User avatar
Robert_S
Cookie Monster
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Robert_S » Fri Jul 08, 2011 6:09 am

It was a minor incident that was rather trivial and used to illustrate a non-trivial point, RD had a douche moment and now we have drama.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P

The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange

User avatar
Rob
Carpe Diem
Posts: 2558
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 1:49 am
About me: Just a man in love with science and the pursuit of knowledge.
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Rob » Fri Jul 08, 2011 6:14 am

Hades, I don't actually think many people think there is an issue with Rebecca's original video. I certainly don't. She is right to be wary of him and it is within her right to blog that she prefer that men don't do this. I think the problem is that there are plenty of people who are using this and labeling it potential rape which equates it to many people as labeling all men as potential rapists. People with voices that reach a large portion of the skeptical community. I personally feel angry that anyone who attempt to make such a claim.

As for the last remark, I agree that there are those who would say such a thing if she had gone to his room and been raped. Anyone who listens to these people, however, is an idiot.

Personally, I have to agree with Robert_S. If it were not for RD's comment this would of gone unnoticed with most people nodding in agreement that the elevator guy was a jerk.
I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. [...] I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn’t frighten me. - Richard Feynman

User avatar
charlou
arseist
Posts: 32524
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:36 am

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by charlou » Fri Jul 08, 2011 6:30 am

devogue wrote:
Animavore wrote:Anyway, all she said was, 'Please don't come up to me like that' or words to that effect. I think Dawkins is overboard here.
I don't think it's that Dawkins is responding to - it's the silliness of this:

http://skepchick.org/2011/06/on-naming- ... onference/

She's fucking nuts.
I disagree that she's nuts. I see her personal concern (I say personal because I don't share it, but I do understand why she and others have it) ... I also think her introduction of "sexualisation" is in her mind and extraneous to what happened as she described it, and should not be automatically accepted was actually the case, particularly given the details, ie that sex was not even mentioned ... her leaping to the "sexualisation" charge is more a concern to me, than the actual behaviour she described in her complaint.

I consider Richard Dawkins' response as completely separate from what Rebecca was concerned about, and separate from what actually happened with the hapless Elevator Guy ... To me his response comes across as self indulgent opportunism manifested as having another dig at religion (in this case Islam) being the root of all evil, and a gormlessly insensitive dismissal of everyday human interaction that occurs sans religious overtones.
no fences

User avatar
Bella Fortuna
Sister Golden Hair
Posts: 79685
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:45 am
About me: Being your slave, what should I do but tend
Upon the hours and times of your desire?
I have no precious time at all to spend,
Nor services to do, till you require.
Location: Scotlifornia
Contact:

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Bella Fortuna » Fri Jul 08, 2011 6:48 am

charlou wrote:I consider Richard Dawkins' response as completely separate from what Rebecca was concerned about, and separate from what actually happened with the hapless Elevator Guy ... To me his response comes across as self indulgent opportunism manifested as having another dig at religion (in this case Islam) being the root of all evil, and a gormlessly insensitive dismissal of everyday human interaction that occurs sans religious overtones.
This.

Dawkins' response and Watson's are individual situations, even though one led to the other. Both wildly inappropriate and misguided in their own ways, in my view.
Sent from my Bollocksberry using Crapatalk.
Image
Food, cooking, and disreputable nonsense: http://miscreantsdiner.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Ronja
Just Another Safety Nut
Posts: 10920
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:13 pm
About me: mother of 2 girls, married to fellow rat MiM, student (SW, HCI, ICT...) , self-employed editor/proofreader/translator
Location: Helsinki, Finland, EU
Contact:

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Ronja » Fri Jul 08, 2011 7:08 am

There's a pretty good analysis (longish) by Barbara A. Drescher. Excerpt:
On Sexual Freedom

If I were an anthropologist studying our culture today, I might get the idea that “sexual freedom” is about incorporating sex into every aspect of life or the that it is the freedom to express one’s self sexually without regard to other people’s feelings. It’s not. Sexual freedom means YOU get to choose what happens to your body. You get to choose when and with whom to have sex. That’s all it means. In order to have that kind of freedom, we have to take responsibility. Culturally, it must be as okay to say “no” as it is to say “yes”. This cannot happen if women are primarily viewed as sexual objects when they do not choose to be.

With all freedom comes responsibility. In the Watson vs. elevator guy example, there were responsibilities on both sides. Watson’s responsibility was to refrain from expressing an interest in sex if she didn’t want it. She did more than that. She clearly expressed a desire to do something else: to sleep. Alone. The man in the elevator had a responsibility to consider the situation and put a little bit of thought into how she might feel about being propositioned at that time in that setting.

On a side note, calling women “prudes” because they do not choose to have sex with multiple partners, do not like it when men stare at their boobs (instead of listening), or do not enjoy a constant barrage of dick jokes, is the opposite of sexual freedom. Think of it as freedom of religion, which includes freedom from religion.
I really dig+love her comparison: Sexual freedom includes freedom from sex - religious freedom includes freedom from religion. That is so spot on! :tup:

More here: http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2011/07/ ... a-new-era/
"The internet is made of people. People matter. This includes you. Stop trying to sell everything about yourself to everyone. Don’t just hammer away and repeat and talk at people—talk TO people. It’s organic. Make stuff for the internet that matters to you, even if it seems stupid. Do it because it’s good and feels important. Put up more cat pictures. Make more songs. Show your doodles. Give things away and take things that are free." - Maureen J

"...anyone who says it’s “just the Internet” can :pawiz: . And then when they come back, they can :pawiz: again." - Tigger

User avatar
charlou
arseist
Posts: 32524
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:36 am

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by charlou » Fri Jul 08, 2011 7:20 am

But she assumed sex, or more specifically as she put it, sexualisation, was on the table, yet didn't give any evidence of that in her complaint. The only indicator she had was he was male and she is female.

Barbara A Drescher (along with many others I've read) seem to assume Rebecca's charge of sexualisation is proven, simply because Rebecca read the situation that way.
no fences

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests