Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

[Coito ergo sum]

At 54:30 http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/37611? ... &out=48:16 - she says that she can't tell us how many times men have touched her in inappropriate ways without my permission at these conferences.

That's a serious indictment. What's the charge, Skepchick? Where were you touched and when and how? If guys are smacking her on the ass at conferences, touching her breast, or otherwise inappropriately touching her, as opposed to shaking her hand, or the odd hand on the shoulder or pat on the back, then that is something that REALLY DOES deserve videos and lectures. Doesn't it? I mean - she chose to highlight a rather benign situation of a guy asking her for coffee and taking no for an answer, but waits until now to mention that she was ASSAULTED repeatedly - innumerable and unrecountable times - inappropriately touched by men at conferences?????

That's far more serious than the odd sexual email or the impertinent request for "coffee."

[Coito ergo sum]

Here is Watson just the other day in New Zealand going on again about Elevatorgate .... http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/progr ... d-shopping

Now she claims that it wasn't really a big deal for her. She was just making a point about how it bothers OTHER women, besides herself.

[charlou]

Yes, taking offense on behalf of others .. arrogant and patronising as fuck.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, taking offense on behalf of others .. arrogant and patronising as fuck.

It's typical of a censor.

"That's offensive!"

"Oh, you mean you don't think you should be allowed to hear/read that? It offends your sensibilities too much?"

"Well...no, not me...but, it is offensive to the other, more sensitive, people..."

LOL

[charlou]

She's very dismissive of men's thoughts about male circumcision, there. As was the interviewer. In fact, the interviewer's bias in support of RW's hobby horse is obvious.

[Coito ergo sum]

She's very dismissive of men's thoughts about male circumcision, there. As was the interviewer. In fact, the interviewer's bias in support of RW's hobby horse is obvious.

She's very dismissive of men in general. And, she gets outraged if a man tries to "tell a woman how to feel," but she constantly tells men how they should feel about things. Men's concerns are whines. Women's concerns, no matter what, are always serious.

[Cormac]

Yes, taking offense on behalf of others .. arrogant and patronising as fuck.

It's typical of a censor.

"That's offensive!"

"Oh, you mean you don't think you should be allowed to hear/read that? It offends your sensibilities too much?"

"Well...no, not me...but, it is offensive to the other, more sensitive, people..."

LOL

LOL.

[DaveDodo007]

She's very dismissive of men's thoughts about male circumcision, there. As was the interviewer. In fact, the interviewer's bias in support of RW's hobby horse is obvious.

She's very dismissive of men in general. And, she gets outraged if a man tries to "tell a woman how to feel," but she constantly tells men how they should feel about things. Men's concerns are whines. Women's concerns, no matter what, are always serious.

I'm sorry but why does anybody care what this individual says, I don't know what the prerequisite for getting a communication degree is, though if we follow her example it sure doesn't include critical thinking, logic and reason. She will only matter while we give her the oxygen of publicity and even then it is just on the intertubes. Ignore her and she will fade into obscurity but knowing the interwebs then the lulz factor will play to big a roll and we will have to put up with her stupidity for a whole lot longer.

[Audley Strange]

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#feature

Related. Shermer publishes some of his thoughts on Atrophelia Benson's crackpottery.

[Coito ergo sum]

She's very dismissive of men's thoughts about male circumcision, there. As was the interviewer. In fact, the interviewer's bias in support of RW's hobby horse is obvious.

She's very dismissive of men in general. And, she gets outraged if a man tries to "tell a woman how to feel," but she constantly tells men how they should feel about things. Men's concerns are whines. Women's concerns, no matter what, are always serious.

I'm sorry but why does anybody care what this individual says, I don't know what the prerequisite for getting a communication degree is, though if we follow her example it sure doesn't include critical thinking, logic and reason. She will only matter while we give her the oxygen of publicity and even then it is just on the intertubes. Ignore her and she will fade into obscurity but knowing the interwebs then the lulz factor will play to big a roll and we will have to put up with her stupidity for a whole lot longer.

For the same reason folks care what Creationists say. They have influence and won't stop trying to shove their idiocy down everyone's throat they possibly can.

I like to go to the occasional conference and convention, and I'd appreciate it if she wasn't invited to speak. That's one of the reasons I care.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#feature

Related. Shermer publishes some of his thoughts on Atrophelia Benson's crackpottery.

We must remember that we are all subject to the same cognitive biases as those whom we criticize in religious and paranormal cohorts, and keep in mind that in journalism, as in science and all rational inquiry, there is an ethic of going to the primary source, and especially giving the person in question the benefit of the doubt. In this case, a simple email asking what I meant would have cleared up any misunderstanding.

Here is the thing -- Michael Shermer needs to understand that Ophelia Benson didn't give him the benefit of the doubt, because she doesn't have any doubt. She KNOWS that he is one of the men who is part of the sexism against women in the secular movement because he occupies space at the top of the secular/skeptic movement. Michael Shermer is part of the old guard -- the Four Horsemen are/were others -- that is the "male dominated" skeptics world.

Benson and the rest of the Skepchick and Apelusters, etc., are trying marginalize and diminish the "leaders" (male) of the skeptic community, so that they can fill the void.

She knows that if she asked Michael Shermer what he meant by the quote she misused that he would explain it and it would be nothing she could use against him. So, of course she did not ask.

[Gerald McGrew]

What I found Benson et al. just don't seem to get, no matter how many times it's repeated to them, is that most of us in the "skeptical community" do support feminist causes and goals. But what we don't support is their obsession with it to the point where every single event, utterance, and issue is viewed through a "there must be sexism at play" lens.

Their obsession leads to some ridiculous behaviors, e.g. attacking folks who disagree with specific language in an anti-harassment policy as being against having such policies at all.

They are ideological extremists, and behave in much the same way as their counterparts in other arenas.

[Jason]

The Skepchicks and the Apelusters are effectively marginalising themselves. As far as I can see, they've peaked and are now on the decline.

[JimC]

There's a book in this...

"The Decline and Fall of the A+ Empire"

[klr]

There's a book in this...

"The Decline and Fall of the A+ Empire"

Except that it was never really an empire. Maybe a short-lived upstart city state that brought itself down through in-fighting, and alienating its neighbours ...