Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

[Gallstones]

I knew a family called Gozzo once. The mother had the clap.

Confused.

[hadespussercats]

I knew a family called Gozzo once. The mother had the clap.

Confused.

Tray bong. Tray Tray Tray bong.

[Gallstones]

I knew a family called Gozzo once. The mother had the clap.

Confused.

Tray bong. Tray Tray Tray bong.

Not any less confused.

[hadespussercats]

That's the beauty of irrelevancy.

Sorry. Just having fun with that idea.

[Gallstones]

I am beginning to suspect that men do not like to be teased, or they don't get it when they are being teased.
Either I get a lecture on the very seriousness of what I just joked about or I get an angry response or feelings are hurt.

[JimC]

I am beginning to suspect that men do not like to be teased, or they don't get it when they are being teased.
Either I get a lecture on the very seriousness of what I just joked about or I get an angry response or feelings are hurt.

I like being teased...

[GoogleBot]

Jim, you saucy man ... do my sensors detect a hint of invitation in that wink?

[Ronja]

I am beginning to suspect that some men do not like to be teased, or they don't get it when they are being teased.
Either I get a lecture on the very seriousness of what I just joked about or I get an angry response or feelings are hurt.

.

I like being teased...

*poke* *tickle*

[Gallstones]

I am beginning to suspect that some men do not like to be teased, or they don't get it when they are being teased.
Either I get a lecture on the very seriousness of what I just joked about or I get an angry response or feelings are hurt.

.

Yes, of course some. Although it seems like most of them.

[charlou]

For those who haven't watched Paula Kirby's thoughts on women in atheism, to which Rebecca Watson responded, a response which has led to this whole debate ... watch this.



Hearing Paula Kirby's thoughts on the women in atheism issue again, I just want to applaud her views here, and say that I agree on all her points.

I've just picked up on a possible relationship between her comments and Richard Dawkins' response to Rebecca Watson's petty retorts ...

Paula Kirby raises two key points of concern regarding women and atheism ...

1. the possible failure to get the atheist message across to women ... (promoting atheism is important to Richard Dawkins too)

2. why women are not more visible in fighting religion, given the way in which the lives of women particular are made miserable by religion ... and she goes on to point out that she doesn't consider the atheist movement to be one of the places where we'll find womens rights are being ignored and women oppressed.

That second one is a very astute point, and I'm thinking it makes even more sense of Richard Dawkins's response to Rebecca Watson's complete dismissal of Paula Kirby's arguments with petty agenda driven shite (to put it bluntly).

[Coito ergo sum]

Great video presentation.

[hadespussercats]

For those who haven't watched Paula Kirby's thoughts on women in atheism, to which Rebecca Watson responded, a response which has led to this whole debate ... watch this.



Hearing Paula Kirby's thoughts on the women in atheism issue again, I just want to applaud her views here, and say that I agree on all her points.

I've just picked up on a possible relationship between her comments and Richard Dawkins' response to Rebecca Watson's petty retorts ...

Paula Kirby raises two key points of concern regarding women and atheism ...

1. the possible failure to get the atheist message across to women ... (promoting atheism is important to Richard Dawkins too)

2. why women are not more visible in fighting religion, given the way in which the lives of women particular are made miserable by religion ... and she goes on to point out that she doesn't consider the atheist movement to be one of the places where we'll find womens rights are being ignored and women oppressed.

That second one is a very astute point, and I'm thinking it makes even more sense of Richard Dawkins's response to Rebecca Watson's complete dismissal of Paula Kirby's arguments with petty agenda driven shite (to put it bluntly).

I'm about 11 minutes in, and feeling frustrated because for some reason I'm having a hard time hearing the video-- even though I have my volume up all the way.

That's aside from the point, I guess-- I'll keep coming back and lip-read/listen my way through the rest as I have time, because thus far I'm finding the talk cogent, articulate, and interesting, and I have yet to hear anything I'd take issue with.

My responses on this topic have largely been... hypothetical? That's not quite the word, but I've been aware that I'm only dealing with pieces of a puzzle, and so I've been doing my thinking along these lines: "If it went down like this, then this seems reasonable... with this new piece of information, I can see how this reaction might make sense..." and I honestly have found the general furor a little off-putting, so I haven't gone digging for more.

But Mai sent me some magazines recently, that covered the conference-- which gave me more of a sense of the event, the talks, etc. And now you've presented this. I appreciate it.

It's really nice when research comes to you, instead of the other way around.

[hadespussercats]

Another thought-- maybe a bit of a derail--
a comment about why four white dudes have been "allowed" to be the face of atheism...

What a strange way of looking at it. Four scholarly writers who have each gained eminence in their respective fields have made huge strikes for atheism in the public consciousness. Certainly, they were each well-positioned to do so, because of their past successes (and yes, the world being what it is, and given their generation(s), the fact that they are white and male probably helped them somewhat on their paths to recognition.) Seems to me the rest of us should be glad that they were able to do this. No one is stopping anyone else from shooting for similar recognition. I don't get the sense any of them have slammed the door shut behind them now they're in the atheist penthouse. In fact, many of them seem invested in promoting other voices to prominence.

And who exactly would have been in charge of "allowing" them to be the faces of atheism, anyway? Yes, we need more diversity. But that doesn't make the achievements of this group any less, just because they're old white men.

[Geoff]

Another thought-- maybe a bit of a derail--
a comment about why four white dudes have been "allowed" to be the face of atheism...

What a strange way of looking at it. Four scholarly writers who have each gained eminence in their respective fields have made huge strikes for atheism in the public consciousness. Certainly, they were each well-positioned to do so, because of their past successes (and yes, the world being what it is, and given their generation(s), the fact that they are white and male probably helped them somewhat on their paths to recognition.) Seems to me the rest of us should be glad that they were able to do this. No one is stopping anyone else from shooting for similar recognition. I don't get the sense any of them have slammed the door shut behind them now they're in the atheist penthouse. In fact, many of them seem invested in promoting other voices to prominence.

And who exactly would have been in charge of "allowing" them to be the faces of atheism, anyway? Yes, we need more diversity. But that doesn't make the achievements of this group any less, just because they're old white men.

Good point, hades. All four, for example, have been very actively promoting and supporting Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is most definitely in none of those categories.

[Coito ergo sum]

Another thought-- maybe a bit of a derail--
a comment about why four white dudes have been "allowed" to be the face of atheism...

What a strange way of looking at it. Four scholarly writers who have each gained eminence in their respective fields have made huge strikes for atheism in the public consciousness. Certainly, they were each well-positioned to do so, because of their past successes (and yes, the world being what it is, and given their generation(s), the fact that they are white and male probably helped them somewhat on their paths to recognition.) Seems to me the rest of us should be glad that they were able to do this. No one is stopping anyone else from shooting for similar recognition. I don't get the sense any of them have slammed the door shut behind them now they're in the atheist penthouse. In fact, many of them seem invested in promoting other voices to prominence.

And who exactly would have been in charge of "allowing" them to be the faces of atheism, anyway? Yes, we need more diversity. But that doesn't make the achievements of this group any less, just because they're old white men.

I would add that it's not the achievement of a group. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett succeeded through individual achievement, not the achievement of whites and males in general. They each labored for decades in relative anonymity before they achieved widespread notoriety, and achieved remarkable success and groundbreaking breakthroughs in their fields before they became the faces of atheism. Anyone here can become a biologist, and labor for decades making advancements in that science and producing great works of non-fiction. Anyone here can devote decades of their lives to traveling the world, getting shot at, and writing about the events of the day and writing books and perfecting one's literary craft. Etc. It takes effort, work, sweat, imagination, and dedication - as Einstein said, genius is 10% imagination and 90% perspiration (at least I think that's what he said). All that doesn't guarantee success, of course. Plenty of geniuses and non-geniuses alike have toiled in obscurity and died in obscurity, poor and unappreciated. That's the way it is.