hadespussercats wrote: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.
Well, yes, they each worked in their own ways to rise to eminence (I think I wrote as much.) But they're certainly pooled their resources since then-- "The Four Horsemen" are a force to be reckoned with.
Still, I think they'd be glad for some company. That's the point of activism and outreach, right?
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.
hadespussercats wrote: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.
Well, yes, they each worked in their own ways to rise to eminence (I think I wrote as much.) But they're certainly pooled their resources since then-- "The Four Horsemen" are a force to be reckoned with.
Still, I think they'd be glad for some company. That's the point of activism and outreach, right?
Well, right. We're in agreement here for sure. I'm just sort of amplifying what you said.
I don't think outreach and activism would do much to locate someone of the fairer sex to join the Four Horsemen in their efforts. I mean - those guys know all the top women in their fields (and all the top men in their fields). There aren't that many around of either men or women that measure up to those four guys. So, they know who the possible candidates are. They're not going to pick some hack like, say, Skepchick, who has no real accomplishments that come anywhere close to what those guys have done. Giver her 20 years, and a few published books, and some learning in an actual discipline, and then maybe. I am sure there are accomplished women in the halls of academia and the offices of various literary publications just as smart as Hitch and Dawk. I think they just need to want to do what those guys do, and do it. Someone will step up to the plate. Maybe Susan Jacoby or someone like that?
I don't know-- maybe women will bring new approaches to the table. I love Julia Sweeney's work.
We've seen what entertainers like Ricky Gervais and Bill Maher and Seth MacFarlane have been able to do to make atheism cool. Maybe we need more, dare I say it, Hollywood types?
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.
Coito ergo sum wrote:as Einstein said, genius is 10% imagination and 90% perspiration (at least I think that's what he said).
Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration. Thomas Edison, 1903
The more I read up on the Rebecca Twatson kerfuffle, the more I am convinced that she is immune to being infected by a stroke of genius, that she is devoid of inspiration and that she is incapable of making any effort that would result in perspiration. After actually catching up on what Paula Watson had to say, I can more easily understand and sympathise with the exasperation of Richard Dawkins. I suggest we ignore the vapid vlogs of the self-indulgent airhead, and focus on those who don't use the internet and conferences as a medium for the release of egocentric urges.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
Coito ergo sum wrote:as Einstein said, genius is 10% imagination and 90% perspiration (at least I think that's what he said).
Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration. Thomas Edison, 1903
The more I read up on the Rebecca Twatson kerfuffle, the more I am convinced that she is immune to being infected by a stroke of genius, that she is devoid of inspiration and that she is incapable of making any effort that would result in perspiration. After actually catching up on what Paula Watson had to say, I can more easily understand and sympathise with the exasperation of Richard Dawkins. I suggest we ignore the vapid vlogs of the self-indulgent airhead, and focus on those who don't use the internet and conferences as a medium for the release of egocentric urges.
devogue wrote:She's got a lovely set of funbags, though.
"Don't do that, guys." No sex please, we're feminists.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
Coito ergo sum wrote:
One really needs to be a delicate flower if one considers it threatening for a guy to ask a girl up to his room for coffee.
Context Coito, context. If you have one picture of a fire, one of a crucifix and one of a yard, there's no problem. But if you put fire on a crucifix in yard, it's pretty bad.
Of course, the guy asked her for coffee in an elevator after they left a bar. He didn't burn anything in her yard, or engage in any equivalent behavior.
stripes4 wrote:Haha. Charlou. It must be something about fantasising about having the 'decision' taken out of your hands. I wonder?? In REALITY, I think I would feel a bit nervous and vulnerable to be propositioned in a lift. In a bar, a club, a supermarket, or any other area with other people milling about, bring it on!!! but for me, if a man made the decision to proposition me in a confined space and with no one else in view, at best I would think him an insensitive dick head.
Context is important. He hadn't just seen Watson in the elevator-- he'd been listening to her talk about sexualization/objectification of women, for hours. How is it not clueless of him to ignore everything she said? If you want a woman not to feel objectified, paying attention to her clearly stated likes and dislikes is a good place to start.
And how is it not clueless of him not to realize that asking someone back to your place has a different effect when it's four in the morning and you're alone in an elevator, versus maybe asking her back at the bar, before she decided to leave? Or at any other point in the long day he'd spent as part of her audience?
Just saw you there, XC-- and...word.
But, is coming on to a woman one finds attractive, even in a clumsy or "inappropriate" manner, to be considered the sexualization/objectification of women? I mean, surely women who don't like to be objectified still might like to ride the baloney pony now and again?
How is it ignoring everything she said to make a clumsy attempt to ask her back to his room for coffer? Maybe he really did want to have a chat and grab a cup of coffee - it was 4am. Lots of people like a bit of coffee when it's late and they've been up all night.
As for the choice of location. He may well have not had an opportunity to talk to her. Maybe he was nervous. Maybe he wound up with her in the elevator purely by chance and thought "what the hell, I'll be nice and try to non-sexually ask her for a cup of java" to show her that he was a modern man who can invite a woman back to his room for something other than banging her. That's "clueless?" Maybe he had no interest in her except for intellectually - she's not that hot anyway, so maybe the guy really did want to have a chat?
I think one needs to make some really big assumptions about this guy in order to question his motives and call him clueless. And, even if he is clueless, and found her attractive but went about it the wrong way asking her in the wrong place at the wrong time - for the love of noGod - was the error of such monumental proportions that he is now to be considered a woman-hating sexist pig? From his clumsy approach, he sounds more like a nerd or a geek who had a couple two many drinks and made a dopey attempt to get to know this chick.
So, "coming on" to a woman isn't about sex, with her? And if it is about sex with her, isn't she then sexualized?
Sure, but being interested in someone sexually is not "sexual objectification." And, if being interested in a woman and asking her out - which for men is almost always about sex - is "sexualizing" a woman, then you'll all just have to live with it, because it's not going to change. Heterosexual men want to have sex with women, and we are sexually attracted to women. Is that what "sexualizing" women is?
. And then when they come back, they can 
