Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

[Coito ergo sum]

Is one of these men "Elevator Guy?"

[charlou]

Some people here will remember Paula's Downfall version of the RDF shipwreck, linked here and at RatSkep .... Here's her take on "elevatorgate"

[Atheist-Lite]

I've changed my mind on this. I kept out of it because I thought it Skepchick was just making a reasonable request and while I still to an extent see her point of view, I have to say that after following it quietly over the last week, I have come to a very different conclusion than I originally did, which was one based on courtesy and manners.

I realise now that that was an assumption based only haphazardly watching her original video. Having trawled through this drama a lot more it appears, to me at least, that her reliance on certain feminist doctrines made her at the very least as unreasonably paranoid (I'm being really generous with that) as any other conspiracy theorist. Having heard her thoughtlessly parrot the usual slogans of her brand of conspiracy theory "misogyny, privilege, white european male etc". I have little option but to disregard her complaint as been anything but totally invalid to anyone.

Other than that how fucking arrogant of her and others to assume that he wanted to fuck her? She seems to have an massively over-inflated sense of her own image. There is a high probability, given that, to me at least, she looks like a bit of a goofy munter, that the guy might have just wanted to talk. That might be a cheap shot, but this whole drama is filled with them.

If you've invalidated the quite apparent world-wide oppression of women then your only conclusion will be the one you've arrived at. Albeit a circular rationale is no more valid than a conspiracy theorists, I would say I'm making a observation whilst your assertation appears a veiled attack which inadvertantly supports the female case - since she cannot reply to a attack here.

[charlou]

I've changed my mind on this. I kept out of it because I thought it Skepchick was just making a reasonable request and while I still to an extent see her point of view, I have to say that after following it quietly over the last week, I have come to a very different conclusion than I originally did, which was one based on courtesy and manners.

I realise now that that was an assumption based only haphazardly watching her original video. Having trawled through this drama a lot more it appears, to me at least, that her reliance on certain feminist doctrines made her at the very least as unreasonably paranoid (I'm being really generous with that) as any other conspiracy theorist. Having heard her thoughtlessly parrot the usual slogans of her brand of conspiracy theory "misogyny, privilege, white european male etc". I have little option but to disregard her complaint as been anything but totally invalid to anyone.

Other than that how fucking arrogant of her and others to assume that he wanted to fuck her? She seems to have an massively over-inflated sense of her own image. There is a high probability, given that, to me at least, she looks like a bit of a goofy munter, that the guy might have just wanted to talk. That might be a cheap shot, but this whole drama is filled with them.

If you've invalidated the quite apparent world-wide oppression of women then your only conclusion will be the one you've arrived at. Albeit a circular rationale is no more valid than a conspiracy theorists, I would say I'm making a observation whilst your assertation appears a veiled attack which inadvertantly supports the female case - since she cannot reply to a attack here.

Sure she can. This is viewable to all, and anyone can sign up and comment.

Audley Strange, apart from the "invalid to anyone" bit, I agree with the general upshot of your second paragraph, and like you, I came to that way of thinking after catching on to the full story/skepchick agenda, and giving it more thought.

[Cormac]

I think women should be allowed to record intrusive conversations and if these are seen by a court to be manipulative in a certain direction then they should be entitled to press charges, possibly a prison term even. If men don't treat women with respect they deserve no mercy. For much of human history it was the reverse. This isn't about payback however - it is about correcting a overbearing male ego and pressing towards true gender equality, where women are able to be themselves.

(No insult intended - I just like this "Can't tell if trolling" image. But, I do think that your proposal is utterly stupid - so I really hope you are trolling for Lolz).

[Audley Strange]

@ Crumple

I think there is a real difference between combating actual oppression and combating an individuals perception of oppression. I think we can easily dismiss the discomfort of Skepchick, because while it may have been valid to her at that time, nothing happened and from what I can tell nothing commonly happens to the majority of women who get in a Hotel Lift at four in the morning, since if assaults in Hotel lifts at 4 in the morning were common, we would definitely hear about it. So her complaint is invalid because it is an irrational fear, a paranoia brought about by conspiratorial thinking in which groups "MEN" with Oppressors and abusers of Women.

In essence her discomfort is little more than the discomfort I get when I walk past a gang of rowdy youths alone late at night and think I'm going to get my head kicked in, which I would say happens where I live and in many other places much more than sexual assault of women by a random stranger in a hotel elevator. So while I might feel uncomfortable about it, I can hardly claim reasonably that all groups of young men should not walk down the same street as me or any other single individual late at night and then suggest that everyone that does not agree with me is an enabler of Thug Culture. The only person that it is valid for is me, at that time. Afterwards I always think "I'm just being silly" because I am even though I have twice had the shit kicked out of me late at night. Caution might be valid but to apriori suspect and blame half the population for the crimes committed by a minority of them is paranoia. To expect everyone to share that paranoia and alter their behaviour accordingly is irrational in the extreme.

To then claim that those who disagree somehow "don't get it" or accuse them of helping perpetuate oppression is highly insulting.

@Charlou. It was inelegantly worded. There is a valid concern with regards to oppression and abuse of women. The feelings of discomfort that she may have had are valid to her, but as I hope I stated clearly above, I don't think she should demand any objective validity to the situation causing the discomfort, rather than accepting that her outlook shaped her discomfort.

[Santa_Claus]

What was she wearing?..................

[Coito ergo sum]

What was she wearing?..................

Low cut blouse...bare shoulders and arms...and a come hither expression....

[Atheist-Lite]

I think women should be allowed to record intrusive conversations and if these are seen by a court to be manipulative in a certain direction then they should be entitled to press charges, possibly a prison term even. If men don't treat women with respect they deserve no mercy. For much of human history it was the reverse. This isn't about payback however - it is about correcting a overbearing male ego and pressing towards true gender equality, where women are able to be themselves.

(No insult intended - I just like this "Can't tell if trolling" image. But, I do think that your proposal is utterly stupid - so I really hope you are trolling for Lolz).

No, it is my impression I'm ahead of time on these issues by a few years but others will catch up. Monitoring technology will contiue to develop and so will legal frameworks. Females are currently denied the right to indivuality because many men think any woman alone is fair game. So women have to turn up at conferences either as a group or within couples which severely inhibits their individual potential. This is a loss both on the level of indivual rights and to soceity since it is the individual who is the cornerstone of so much genuine progress.

[Coito ergo sum]

It is already legal for people to record other people in a public place. If you're in a bar/restaurant where others can hear, or out and about in elevators or hallways or alleys, it is not illegal anywhere (at least not anywhere in the US) to record audio and video of your surroundings. If it was, then people would take precious few pictures and video recordings on vacations. They almost invariably catch strangers' images and sounds.

[Atheist-Lite]

It is already legal for people to record other people in a public place. If you're in a bar/restaurant where others can hear, or out and about in elevators or hallways or alleys, it is not illegal anywhere (at least not anywhere in the US) to record audio and video of your surroundings. If it was, then people would take precious few pictures and video recordings on vacations. They almost invariably catch strangers' images and sounds.

The trend is already set then.

[Santa_Claus]

What was she wearing?..................

Low cut blouse...bare shoulders and arms...and a come hither expression....

Lucky she didn't meet a Muslim then.....she could (would?) have been stoned as a whore. Perhaps, in the grand scheme of things, an offer for a coffee no great matter (to both parties).

But nice to see that she is playing her part in re-introducing women having "an attack of the vapours"

[Coito ergo sum]

I love the MASSIVE hypocrisy that she states with absolute glee.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W014KhaRtik click to about 11 minutes in. She laughs heartily with glee about the "awesome" hate mail that Richard Dawkins gets. You know - the stuff about wanting him dead and all that. That's just "hilarious." The stuff that she gets, though is "misogyny" and hatred, but not "hilarious." We're supposed to take the mail she gets far more seriously than the mail Dawkins gets....why? Because she's a "chick."

The more I see of this Skepchick chick, the more I realize she's just a dope. From what I can tell, she has no scientific background, yet she pontificates on good science and bad science and which studies have good methodology and bad methodology. Basically, she's just a political activist who adopts positions and champions scientific ideas that further her activist goals. Almost every speaking engagement I've seen of hers is essentially just a lot of snark and smirky jokes, and a lot of conceit.

Compare her to AronRa in that video - AronRa who actually knows something, Skepchick who just pontificates.

[anna09]

Some people here will remember Paula's Downfall version of the RDF shipwreck, linked here and at RatSkep .... Here's her take on "elevatorgate"

I love it!

[Atheist-Lite]

I love the MASSIVE hypocrisy that she states with absolute glee.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W014KhaRtik click to about 11 minutes in. She laughs heartily with glee about the "awesome" hate mail that Richard Dawkins gets. You know - the stuff about wanting him dead and all that. That's just "hilarious." The stuff that she gets, though is "misogyny" and hatred, but not "hilarious." We're supposed to take the mail she gets far more seriously than the mail Dawkins gets....why? Because she's a "chick."

The more I see of this Skepchick chick, the more I realize she's just a dope. From what I can tell, she has no scientific background, yet she pontificates on good science and bad science and which studies have good methodology and bad methodology. Basically, she's just a political activist who adopts positions and champions scientific ideas that further her activist goals. Almost every speaking engagement I've seen of hers is essentially just a lot of snark and smirky jokes, and a lot of conceit.

Compare her to AronRa in that video - AronRa who actually knows something, Skepchick who just pontificates.

I never call someone a dope even if they might be - it is ad hominem and bad form IMO, especially with a female, maybe I'm old fashioned and defer the doubt to the ladies?