Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

[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.

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?

Fair point -- how about: she has no scientific credentials.

[charlou]

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.

Yep.


Part 1 of a series of 6 ...

[Coito ergo sum]

+1

[Cormac]

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.

Yep.


Part 1 of a series of 6 ...

That filthy rapist "welcomed" poor Skepchik. Disgusting.

[Atheist-Lite]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ly-climate

Richard Dawkins, check the evidence on the 'chilly climate' for women

A few weeks ago, blogger and Skepchick.org founder Rebecca Watson publicly expressed discomfort after an unwanted flirtatious advance was made towards her in an elevator at 4am, just a few hours after she had been talking about this very subject at the World Atheist Convention in Dublin. The brutal reactions from some members of the Skeptic and scientific community that followed are now known as "Elevatorgate", and they have highlighted a remarkable disregard for evidence and lack of empathy towards women. Richard Dawkins himself took part and made sarcastic comments to belittle the feelings of unpleasantness felt by Watson ("Stop whining, will you").


I usually have a great deal of respect for Dawkins's ideas but I strongly disagree with his stance on this issue. Being drunkenly flirted with by an intoxicated man in a lift at 4am can make someone feel intimidated even if no physical contact is made. I've had similar experiences while waiting at bus stops after dark. The freedom to escape is there, as Dawkins points out, but the verbal exchange alone can still make some of us feel unsettled and shaken – not to mention the fact that many of us have experienced being followed home. This effect is amplified within a confined space with no other people present.


As Dawkins has conceded in a later reply, highlighting a problem on a larger scale, as he did when comparing Watson's complaint to the hardships encountered by women in some developing countries, does not erase the damage caused by a smaller problem. His dismissal of Watson's concerns further contributes to the problem of alienation felt by some women within the Skeptic community – something we should be collectively working to combat rather than develop.

(continued)

[Gallstones]

I am disgusted by and disallusioned from what has fallen out of this incident, this common, otherwise unremarkable incident.

I am less comfortable now than I was, and more suspicious; and I have lost respect for some people.

[Atheist-Lite]

I am disgusted by and disallusioned from what has fallen out of this incident, this common, otherwise unremarkable incident.

Even Cliff Richard must have his dark side, just don't anyone tell my mother.

[Gallstones]

I am going to have to go look up this Cliff Richard now you know.

[Gallstones]

Pertinent musical interlude

[Atheist-Lite]

Pertinent musical interlude

Not available outside the US.

[Gallstones]

Maybe this one then.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pojL_35QlSI&ob=av2e[/youtube]

[Audley Strange]

I am disgusted by and disallusioned from what has fallen out of this incident, this common, otherwise unremarkable incident.

Even Cliff Richard must have his dark side, just don't anyone tell my mother.

Living Doll "Gonna lock her up in a trunk" is pretty dark.

[Gallstones]

I just made a quick google of the guy. I do want to get the reference so I will have to read more later.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ly-climate

Richard Dawkins, check the evidence on the 'chilly climate' for women

A few weeks ago, blogger and Skepchick.org founder Rebecca Watson publicly expressed discomfort after an unwanted flirtatious advance was made towards her in an elevator at 4am, just a few hours after she had been talking about this very subject at the World Atheist Convention in Dublin. The brutal reactions from some members of the Skeptic and scientific community that followed are now known as "Elevatorgate", and they have highlighted a remarkable disregard for evidence and lack of empathy towards women. Richard Dawkins himself took part and made sarcastic comments to belittle the feelings of unpleasantness felt by Watson ("Stop whining, will you").

It's a bit much to call the reactions "brutal." Some reactions from Joe Anonymous Internet Poster might have been harsh, but those who are "members of the Skeptic and scientific community?" Not really. Even Dawkins' letter can hardly be termed "brutal." Sarcastic, yes. Brutal?

I usually have a great deal of respect for Dawkins's ideas but I strongly disagree with his stance on this issue. Being drunkenly flirted with by an intoxicated man in a lift at 4am can make someone feel intimidated even if no physical contact is made.

I don't think Rebecca said the guy was drunk. Did she?

I've had similar experiences while waiting at bus stops after dark. The freedom to escape is there, as Dawkins points out, but the verbal exchange alone can still make some of us feel unsettled and shaken – not to mention the fact that many of us have experienced being followed home. This effect is amplified within a confined space with no other people present.

Lots of verbal exchanges "can" make many different people "unsettled." Many women, just being approached in a bar or at a party may well feel "unsettled." The issue really depends on the facts, I think. Here, the facts are, the guy was known to her, and was apparently hanging out with her group for many hours in the hotel bar, and she knew that he was an attendee at the conference. He was legitimately in the hotel, and was as much a hotel guest as she was. Per Watson, he got in the elevator. He said, "don't take this the wrong way, but I find you interesting and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come up to my room for coffee?" She said she wasn't interested, and left, and he left it at that and did not ask her again, try to persuade, etc. That's it. We are asked to believe that a very self-confident, 27 year old woman is "shaken" by that? I think it's not "brutal" to be skeptical of such a claim.

As Dawkins has conceded in a later reply, highlighting a problem on a larger scale, as he did when comparing Watson's complaint to the hardships encountered by women in some developing countries, does not erase the damage caused by a smaller problem.

Damage? What "damage?"

His dismissal of Watson's concerns further contributes to the problem of alienation felt by some women within the Skeptic community – something we should be collectively working to combat rather than develop.

(continued)

So, now if we don't agree with Watson, that contributes to alienation of women?

And, first, don't we have to establish that women are, in fact, actually "alienated?" I hear many voices of women saying they aren't, and that elevatorgate was not a big deal - those followers of Stef McGraw, etc. -- why ought we dismiss their views? Are they alienating women too? Do they not "get it?"

[Ronja]

I hear many voices of women saying they aren't, and that elevatorgate was not a big deal - those followers of Stef McGraw, etc. -- why ought we dismiss their views?

I'm neither completely "pro" Watson nor completely "pro" McGraw, and I certainly won't "follow" anyone uncritically.

That said, doesn't it make sense that a notable percentage of the women who speak up about "EleveatorGate" in atheist/skeptic/etc forums and blog comments are exactly those women who already feel comfortable enough to speak up in the atheist/skeptic/etc community? So that sample is likely skewed, though it is difficult to estimate which (all) way(s) the skew(s) go(es).

IMO, pretty much everybody who has said that "elevatorgate was not a big deal" has pointed out that *they* themselves would not have felt uncomfortable in a similar situation. If they also implied that Watson *therefore* either should not have felt what she felt or should not have spoken about it, then they can , because what she feels is what she feels, and nobody has the right to telle her to (not) feel this or that. And to tell her that she doesn't have the right to speak about her experience or feelings is just idiotic, unless one is willing to claim oneself as some kind of Higher Authority for What Are Suitable Topics on the Interwebz.