Almost over
I was going to move briskly on, but…well there’s just this one last thing, or this one last pair of things.
One is that I think I may have figured out what Richard was trying to get at, or at least what he was irritated about. My friend Maryam Namazie was at the Dublin conference, and as always gave a stem-winder of a talk. Maryam works right at the coal face of women’s rights issues. I think Richard may have thought (or felt) there should have been more of that kind of thing and less of the kind of thing Rebecca talked about. That’s not crazy, it seems to me. One doesn’t have to agree with it, but it’s not crazy.
The trouble is, he didn’t say that. He said
I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .
The problem is obvious. He’s implying that that’s what Rebecca thinks – that an invitation for coffee (as Richard mischaracterizes it) is worse than a total absence of rights. That’s a rude thing to imply.
And his later explanation was also flawed:
The man in the elevator didn’t physically touch her, didn’t attempt to bar her way out of the elevator, didn’t even use foul language at her. He spoke some words to her. Just words. She no doubt replied with words. That was that. Words. Only words, and apparently quite polite words at that.If she felt his behaviour was creepy, that was her privilege, just as it was the Catholics’ privilege to feel offended and hurt when PZ nailed the cracker. PZ didn’t physically strike any Catholics. All he did was nail a wafer…
Bad analogy. Different kinds of being “offended.” Elevator guy did what he did (however you characterize it) to a particular person; to Rebecca. PZ did what he did to no person at all – he did it to a cracker. People really do get to be “offended” about things done to them personally, though there is still always plenty of room to disagree over how offended and all the rest of it.
And given that…well I think it’s pretty understandable that Rebecca is pissed. I hope she’ll reconsider the permanence of the being pissed, but I certainly see how she got there.
I really don’t share the widely-expressed view that Richard is totally clueless about feminism. That hasn’t been my experience – he backed me up once when I was infuriated about people calling women “bitch” at RDF and then when I objected going into shouty bully mode for about ten pages. He did the Marshall McLuhan thing: the shouty boyz had been saying he totally agreed with them and he came out from behind the sign and said the hell I do. But I think he put his case badly this time.
There.
Now I’ll move briskly on.
Well said. The way I see it is this: Richard Dawkins is just this bloke who is great at biology. There’s no point going to him for anything to do with human rights, feminism or anything else. I mean, he has his views, but if I were him I would not try and use my celebrity as platform to speak out about matters on which I am just like any other bloke. When Richard wants to say something philosophical, I hear he has a word with Dennett, which is a good thing to do. Perhaps that might be a wise approach when wanting to say something about female oppression, psychology, coffee and lift etiquette etc.
Just to be clear, one of the people who had called a woman “bitch” was…Dawkins.* Given this and the fact that sexist epithets were standard at his site for some time and that it required your fighting it and requesting that he speak up, their assumption that he didn’t have a serious problem with it was probably reasonable.
*I did believe his explanation that he had meant “bitcher,” which isn’t exactly wonderful either while significantly better, but he wrote “bitch.”
Well, I think there’s a bit of an accomidationalist vibe there. Be careful about hitting too hard on the little issues because then you alienate people when it comes to the big issues. Sometimes it’s appropriate advice, sometimes it’s not. The trick is knowing which is which.
I just happen to think that when it comes to feminism it’s NOT appropriate. Actually, I don’t think that generally it’s ever appropriate, as in our society we tend to reward strongly stated arguments and punish weaker ones. However, that said, is it reasonable to expect everybody to understand the near-recent history of the feminist movement and the nature of the conflicts with anti-feminists? Probably not. It’s unfortunate, but I think it’s unrealistic to expect otherwise.
I think Creepy Guy’s act was way over the line, not because it was offensive, but because it could easily make someone fear for their personal safety. There is a difference in kind there, not merely one of degree.
As far as offense goes, maybe you haven’t been in Richard’s shoes, Ophelia. The guy really has to hold a hard line against the argument that offense should be given special accommodation, and btw I think the offense a catholic gets at seeing a cracker desecrated can be as great as the offense a woman (or man for that matter) feels when trapped against their will in a scary situation. If you don’t, I think you might be underestimating the depth of many people’s religious feeling or religious identity. I might even go so far as to say that concern for some eternal, infinite whatever has a greater potential than concern for one’s own life. But so what? Offense is not grounds for special accommodation, period.
To reiterate, I think sexual harassment is deeply wrong and an embarrassment for our community, because it is a form of intimidation, but not because of offense. That is a wrong argument and a bad argument.
Salty – I know – and if I remember correctly, he took that occasion also to change the “bitch” comment. Oh wait – you know that; I told you about it at the time. I’d forgotten for a minute that we’d had an email exchange about it.
Maybe it wasn’t that occasion, but he did do it at some point.
Miles, oh I know the offense that people feel about X is as strong as the offense they feel about Y. They can still be wrong to do so.
Karmakin…huh? Accommodationist vibe where? Who said be careful about hitting too hard on the little issues?
Hmm, well. Might be. I’d like it to be. As appalled as I was in the context of the Pharyngula threads, I wouldn’t hold grudges. (I fucked up enough times myself.) But I won’t speculate about Richard’s intent. Anyway, the only way I see this to be cleared up is for Richard to come up with a clarification.
SC, you definitely have been involved in the (online) community longer than me. Are you referring to this comment?
Damn, I wish there were some sort of wiki where a newcomer like me might easily look such things up.
The Pharyngula wiki is worth a read to avoid annoying questions when others are obviously talking about something well known.
My English is broken: come up = come forward, correct?
And screwed up the link tag:
http://richarddawkins.net/comments/429203
Sorry for the triple post. That’s it. I’ll go for a few beers tonight to facilitate falling asleep.
The insomnia is getting me. Stupid depression.
While I agree with your reasoning on Dawkins’ probable point, Ophelia, I think there’s a somewhat larger problem with Dawkins’ statement — that he aimed at Watson. Her initial statement in the video was pretty low key. The intertubes then gradually escalated to explosive levels because of (stupid) reactions to and mischaracterizations of what she said. If he had intervened to aim criticism at the stupid overreaction, it might’ve helped things. However, he chose to characterize the initial statement as an over-reaction, which just added more fuel, and turned all the atheist intertubes kind of stupid for a while.
While I agree that Dawkins’ motivations were probably good, he chose the wrong target for his criticism, not just the formulation of the criticism. I mean, I don’t think there was a possible good way to formulate the criticism because it was of the wrong target.
(Although now I feel like I need to go read a bunch of the involved parties I’ve been (sort of) defending to refresh my mind on why I stopped reading/listening/watching them pretty much immediately after starting a few years ago. So I can criticize them. :))
The problem with this is that it just doesn’t make sense socially. When something as mild and innocuous as that video and the fact that there was more attention paid to women in the movement than he’d prefer is met with that sort of contempt, it’s basically saying to women: “I’m your ally but not in any way related to problems you face. You should shut up about those if you want me to work with you because other women have it much worse.” And as you note, it insinuates that atheist women who want to address problems of relevance in their own lives and movement are ignoring the much worse problems other women face, which is not the case. (And if he doesn’t think women in the US face real and significant threats to and the erosion of our fundamental rights through the efforts of the Religious Right, he hasn’t been paying attention.) The irony is that several people were trumpeting how great it was that there were so many women in speaking roles at this event, and then a man wants to chastise them for not focusing sufficiently on the issues most important to him.
There are plenty of means through which I can work for my own and other women’s rights and social justice, support science, and fight religion. I’d like to have men as allies, but I’m not going to accept being disrespected or belittled or take second-class status to do it, and anyone who would suggest this is missing something fundamental about the nature of rights and equality. Anyone who suggests that we should is not a full ally.
Moreover, these are not the first sexist comments from Dawkins by any stretch. As I’ve said several times, I’m optimistic about him. Otherwise I wouldn’t have posted what I did at my blog. But he’s not getting my support unless he apologizes to Watson.
This must be just like playing dress-up for you, Ophelia! You get to be strident, wrong, horrible, ignorant and too accommodating and nice, all at the same time! I wanna play too.
Ophelia: That’s how I read Dawkins’ comment. I could be wrong however.
That is, don’t complain about what happened because X Y and Z are much worse and as such they should be the focus, so we should keep our “powder dry” until X Y and Z come up. It’s not the usually accomidationalism you see in atheist circles, but it IS the type you see in political circles.
Wheeeeeeeeeee Josh!
Hear, hear; amen; yea, verily; and just so.
And I’m definitely not going to accept men telling me which issues concerning women I should devote my attention to. No way. Nervy and ridiculous.
That’s the one.
Yup. I remember. I never could find anything on that forum unless someone led me to it.
K, oh, I see. Right. I didn’t read it quite that way, but I see what you mean.
Moving on now? Do you really REALLY mean it?
You do realize no one is actually forcing you to read any of it, right?
By the way this is Kenny. I find it funny that when Rebecca started posted on the last thread you made sure I wouldn’t be able to post. And you were like.. “well I didn’t really mean what I said in that post… I dunno erm…”. My god she has that effect on people.
No I didn’t make sure you wouldn’t be able to post. I deleted a couple of trashy comments. There’s a level beneath which I refuse to sink.
Pronk/Kenny: that was me, the webmaster, making sure that your posts went into moderation instead of being posted straight away. Had nothing to do with Ophelia, and it had nothing to do with the timing of Rebecca posting here. It had everything to do with my noticing you calling people here cunts. And now that you’re back, I’m doing it again. If you really really have something to say, switch email/ip again, or post things that are worth letting through the moderation queue.
Oh was it? There’s been so much I’ve forgotten most of it by now.
Yes that’s definitely one of the levels beneath which I refuse to sink.
The personal-ness is important. If PZ had taken a copy of a picture of my family and put a nail through it and trashed it and blogged about it, I’d be pretty upset. If PZ had taken, say, a copy of a book that was particularly special to me, or something like that, I’d shrug. I understand that some people claim all blessed crackers to be as special to them as a picture of their family, but… well, you don’t get to do that. It’s not fair.
It’s maybe stretching the analogy to the breaking point here, but if I said to nobody in particular, “When is some sexy lady going to come back to my hotel room and have some ‘coffee’ with me?,” it might be a little offensive (depending on context) but it wouldn’t have the personal creepiness of the RW/EG incident.
I think I can handle that Josh. Although there was nothing wrong with my comment that you didn’t allow through moderation. Especially that I was replying to someone who mentioned my name otherwise I wouldn’t have even posted here anymore.
So, you not only come onto this blog and call people cunts, but you morph constantly too. If I were webmaster I’d ban you outright.
Well, an outright ban would only work if you had to register in order to comment, and that would create a real hassle for Ophelia, having to approve registrations and such. I suppose it would also work if I forced everyone to log in through facebook or something in order to comment. But I’m ok with just temporarily inconveniencing people who I (if it were my blog) would otherwise outright ban, given the means. Now, if he starts posting a new insulting comment from a new IP every time, I’ll have to do something like write a wordpress plugin that automatically moderates comments coming from TOR exit nodes. That’ll be a hassle for me, but maybe that plugin should exist anyway, on general principle.
SC@13: “When something as mild and innocuous as that video and the fact that there was more attention paid to women in the movement than he’d prefer is met with that sort of contempt”
The thing I find frustrating about this whole discussion is all the hand-wringing over who is “to blame” for making this into “a big deal.”
Dawkins didn’t need to wade into this to begin with. Of course, he has as much right to express his opinion on any topic as the rest of us. But he took a page out of the accommodationist playbook when he played the “there are more important things to talk about” card.
Well, of course there are. But you know, there are lengthy comment threads at Pharyngula about libertarianism, the merits of squids versus cats, silly emails PZ gets from lonely cranks who don’t matter, and whatever the hell goes on in The Endless Thread. Yet as far as I know, RD doesn’t poke his head in there and say, “hey! Stop talking about this, we have more important things to worry about!”
So the fact that he chose this issue on which to say Let’s Get Our Priorities Straight and Talk About What I Want To Talk About sends a message about his priorities.
And more importantly, telling people that they should stop talking about what they’re talking about never works well. That goes for all the people moaning about “geez, another thread about this?” I’m bored with all the threads about free will lately, but they seem to be sustaining a lot of interest, so I’m not complaining.
Josh L – I didn’t mean to come off sounding like I was lecturing the webmaster:) I was more voicing my indignation at Pronk/Kenny/Jim/Polly-O!
I had a different impression from Dawkins statements, although it’s still not very complimentary to him. I believe it was his second post where he made a very naive statement that was essentially, ‘what’s so hard about escaping an elevator?’. Even without all the evidence of actual assaults that was subsequently provided to him, just common sense should tell him that a hotel elevator late at night is about as safe as the hallway closet, like not at all. That comment seemed so clueless it made me wonder if he had realized his original comment was made hastily and was trying to cover for it by playing dumb.
I see more of a cultural and generational disconect at play than a gender-based one. Richard is of a generation, class and society that is a bit genteel, that fusses a bit over the language and the tone, that sees certain things like wearing your hat the right way round, not smacking gum as you speak, and not airing your personal nasty encounters in a broadcast medium or, in this view, immodestly using them as examples of a larger concern and thereby throwing the focus on yourself, as signs of a lack of serious engagement and regard for your hearers. It probably is a kind of gut-level distaste for just the mode of discourse that Rebecca (a US-bred, non-aristocratic youth of the internet generation with a streak of magenta and a penchant for snark) finds natural and unremarkable. The web culture she swims in thinks nothing of shooting from the hip about the funny, stupid, and annoying details of life in quickie videos popped out to a motley gang of whoever tunes in: “Just sayin’ y’all.” then on to the next topic. This seems shallow, narcissistic and flippant to those from a more methodical, formal world. To those in the swim, it’s just business as usual – they know the jargon, assume the irony, bracket the subtext without a thought.Could it be just as as old dogs and young cats on different wavelengths? Just askin’.
Bruce, that’s really perceptive and I’m betting you’re right.
“just as simple as”
Yes. And the fact that it’s not even entirely “Let’s…Talk About What I Want To Talk About” but more “Stop Talking About What You Want To Talk About (even for a few minutes in a video or a few hours at a conference).”
But there are people living in theocracies!!! Seriously, I’m with you. I think those discussion might be getting a little theology-like, but I haven’t read enough to know.
Bruce Springsteen, that’s one of the awesomest comments I’ve seen about this whole unfortunate debacle.
any of the people patting Dawkins on the back seem to be young and American. If this were a generational and cultural gap, wouldn’t that be the crowd likely to side with Ms Watson?
I agree with Pronk-O!
***
Hmm…I think there may be a small element of that, but what you say describes PZ or Jerry Coyne almost as well as (and in some ways more so than) Rebecca. So, no.
That should read Many*. ‘Many of the ectectect’
Yeah, I bombed English in high school. Sue me.
PLoS:
http://blogs.plos.org/retort/2011/07/07/the-inhuman-response-to-rebecca-watson/
Salon:
http://www.salon.com/life/sex/?story=/mwt/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting
Well they seem to getting on OK here. And I can’t see Richard Dawkins being offended by being told that see uses his rendition of his hate mail as a ring-tone on her phone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W014KhaRtik
Let’s not have any extra hassles for Josh L, shall we?
Kenny, if you impersonate a reasonable person (or, indeed, if you are a reasonable person and the insult-purveyor was the impersonation) then there’s no problem.
And it’s not all about you.
As to who was siding with whom (vis a vis my theory), all that side-taking came after their disconnect had already been construed as a chiefly sex-based one. Once someone proposes a strong interpretation of a confusing remark in these things, all the rest of the commentary tends to lock onto that interpretation and fly away. I’ve had that happen all the time in many flame wars. I say something, the very first responder hangs a mistaken understanding on it, that becomes the standard interpretation and the frame for the debate, and you can’t reel it back in to address what you really meant if your life depended on it. And sometimes it feels like it does.
I was starting to fear for Richard with some of the spring-boarding outrage at his apparent, previously hidden virulent sexism. Thought I heard strains of the Elephant March from “Aida.” I do hope he comes back out of his teapot once the sounds of breaking china subside.
Your cowardice doesn’t make for the other person’s fault. You, and all who endorse this particular cowardly view-point fail. It’s the same kind of mentality that is turning citizens the US and England from liberty-loving men and women into wimps who want a 24/7 police state.
What comes next? Arresting brown men because they ‘scare’ us? Oh wait, we do do that. It’s called ‘driving in a white neighborhood while black…’
As for the rest of the whine fest, the people supporting Rebbecca and her cry-fest are hypocrites. You fucking whine about your rights to be free from religion and how it should be ok for you to speak your mind and shit… All while decrying the authoritarianism of religion. Yet here you are, running around BEING JUST LIKE THEM.
It disgusts me.
He asked her to coffee. Maybe he meant sex. Maybe he didn’t. YOU DON’T KNOW.
But in the grand scheme of things, so fucking what? When the girls at REMCO asked me to strip for a bachelorette party, I didn’t run screaming around with the vapors. I just politely said ‘no.’
Even though it was creepy…
Pee-Zed and Jerry are more hip than Dawkins. It doesn’t have to track to age. I know some fuddy-duddy kids, too, who cring at the web style. I ride the fence, myself
I read some of the articles that are now coming out in the regular press, and also a bit of what folks like Kazez and now Stangroom have to say. The accomodationists can’t believe their luck and find it hard to hide their smiles, while Salon, the New Statesmen and others are jumping at the opportunity to commit character assassination of Dawkins (who gets called things like “the atheist almighty” in those articles) in the same way we’re seeing it with the “letters” campaign from Zvan/Buggirl on the skepchicks website. It’s gone too far, and our enemies are loving it. Maybe we should give that a thought.
BTW, I phrased my premise backwards. I should have said signs of a proper concern, not lack of concern, in sentence two of my “thesis.” Another effect of hurried discourse. Post in haste, repent at leisure. That should be our motto.
*looks around nervously*
(By the way, Screechy Monkey, I’ve always found your comments some of the smartest and funniest in these discussions. I would take your views seriously and probably find you funny even if you completely disagreed with me.)
***
LOL.
***
You’re a nut, Moses.
yeah…
Heh. This sounds like hyperbole but the caps indicate otherwise.
I can’t speak for others but the feeling is mutual. Especially after the first bit of your comment.
Moses, really – that comment is ridiculous (and then rude).
So women should just blithely accept invitations from men they don’t know to go to the men’s hotel rooms at 4 in the morning? You really think that’s a sensible idea, do you?
Please.
There you go again with your Lesbian Bullshit, Ophelia.
@MosesZD
I always like your comments, but seriously your off base and should probably go back and read what was said.
Usually your posts are well thought out and reasoned but the last one was just fucking stupid.
Rorshach – I think Jean Kazez is saying some good things. I like her dissection of the difference between inviting for coffee and inviting for sex.
Josh, no no, that was me being horrible. Different category altogether.
Oh, I thought that was you being a dinosaur. I’m so confused!
Also, Jean said
I have, yesterday I think, or maybe it was the day before, and I had the same (or a similar) thought. For that matter I also became sort of hyperalert as soon as Rebecca said “Paula Kirby,” because Paula’s a friend of Richard’s. Anyway I think that’s right – it was at that panel that the thing started.
No I’m a dinosaur about undershirts but horrible about 4 a.m. hotel room invitations. It’s easy once you have the knack.
And the schadenfreude about atheists brawling doesn’t really bother me. I find the whole thing kind of funny myself. Well not the whole thing, but most of it.
I guess it’s possible, but I don’t see the point in speculating. Plenty of people including myself thought Paula got this one wrong, but I wasn’t watching Dawkins’ facial expressions when Rebecca tried to explain to her why she was wrong.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/dublin-panel-women-atheist-activists/#comment-116920
Paula Kirby* is not my ally. She may be others’. So we’ll go our separate ways. And if her views are going to be central to this organized atheist movement, I want no part of it. I’m going to be (redundantly) an anarchist atheist like I’ve long been.
*She did a sociology module! She knows what she’s talking about!
Yeah. Some parts are downright painful.
Meanwhile, the world burns, religious lunatics run amok, Michele Bachmann may become president of the USA and people are still listening to Rod Stewart ballads.
Methinks Richard was only asking for a wee bit perspective.
If we keep up this internecine bickering folks may mistake us for a cranky subculture with too much time on our hands.
Methinks. Methinks. Ugh. Why do people use that??
Oh, and your concern is noted.
“Meanwhile, the world burns, religious lunatics run amok, Michele Bachmann may become president of the USA and people are still listening to Rod Stewart ballads.
Methinks Richard was only asking for a wee bit perspective.
If we keep up this internecine bickering folks may mistake us for a cranky subculture with too much time on our hands.”
Stop. Just stop. No one is concentrating on this issue to the exclusion of anything else, even as I post this I have 20-30 other blogs open reading all about Bachmann and a myriad of other issues in the world. Its downright stupid to suggest people aren’t focusing on the “right” things.
wow…
Bruce S. Springsteen, I think your thesis about Richard’s behavior probably has a lot of truth in it. However, from that perspective, he still came a cropper over the whole noblesse oblige thing. Bertie Wooster would be most disappointed.
Ok. How dare he advocate for atheism while Rome burns all around us? Aren’t there more pressing matters at hand?
Yes, Josh!! Amen! I endorse this sentiment so strongly. I’m so happy to hear another person express with the use of “methinks.”
My guess is that people use it because it makes them feel clever. We all know the word specifically from Hamlet, right? So if they evoke Shakespeare in their phrasing, their remark must be more eloquent for it, right? (Wrong.)
Just my guess, but it feels so good to not be alone in being aggravated by “methinks.”
(Excessive delight about something so small? Maybe. Oh well.)
Rorschach
True enough
for what its worth , (assuming this statement is accurate), who cares?
Most of us can see that Dawkins can be wrong about this incident without any of the other slurs being attached to him. It shows we do not blindly follow what Dawkins or PZ or whoever says. And it shows that treatment of women is a topic we care about. If there is a flamewar , so be it – some religious guy will say something outrageous soon enough for us to move on :).
Deepak (nice nym btw),
there is a difference between people in the movement calling Dawkins out on what they perceived to be a comment that was insensitive at best and privileged at worst, and what we’re seeing now in the form of fleas, accomodationists and Dawkins-haters jumping on the bandwagon and trying to get a kick in while he’s down. That sort of thing can not be in anyone’s interest.
SC, thanks, and likewise. I wish I had your stamina on this issue.
I found Kirby’s post at WEIT a little disappointing, too. But I wouldn’t let that discourage you. Frankly, there’s not that much of an organized atheist movement anyway — more like a loose collection of people and organizations and conferences and blog networks — so I’m not even sure what it would mean to withdraw from it. Herding cats and all that.
People will continue to complain about Dawkins’ views of gender issues, Hitchens’ on Iraq, Harris on torture, etc. (everybody still loves Dennett, though, right?) And that’s all to the good. The critics of Gnu Atheism are going to take their potshots at us one way or the other: either we’re a cult slavishly following our Atheist Popes, or we’re undergoing Deep Rifts and schisms. So we might as well go ahead and speak our minds and not suppress vigorous debate in the name of unity.
@rorschach
(my favorite character from watchmen! – the book)
Heh. As if they need him to be down to do that. He’ll still be our pope :).
Methinks the anti-methinksers doth protest too much.*
As someone who does use the word from time to time, the reason I use it because I associate it with the pointedness of the comment in Hamlet. The connotations of the word do add a bit more than just saying “I think,” in my opinion.
*Yes, I know that’s not the original phrasing or the same as the meaning of “protest” in Shakespeare. Same happened with “No, I am your father” in Star Wars. It is a compliment to the effectiveness of a line or scene that people misremember it in fresh ways. Search your feelings; you know it to be true.
Moses ZD wrote:
Who’s suggesting criminalizing anything? Your comment comes across as hyperbolic and more than a bit sexist. I suggest you step back, look at the evidence again and reevaluate your view of things. Jenna did the same in the last thread: it’s not impossible that you might also.
Goddamnit – it’s like trying to put your foot down in quicksand. :D
SC, the PloS article was good, but a lot of the younger anti-RW types are arguing something else; that no matter how creepy EG way, RW is evil because she called out a student in a bitchy-way using her power-ring of conference (or something, I can’t do internet speak, probably shouldn’t try to impersonate it). That’s a no-no because, um, power imbalance, student not able to respond apparently. Yet I’ve seen someone on Facebook with said students name going around crowing about the character assasination of RD as if this dispute could really wipe out his acheivements in ethology.
As for the creotards and other poeple who dislike RD. They would always find something to attack him with. This is just some ammo. It could be something else. He’ll survive.
My point, which I didn’t clearly state, is that the student seems quite capable of responding to RW. Anyhoo.
Also, not just younger (relative to me) but young at heart anti-RW types as Russell Blackford and Jerry Coyne seem to be on board with this criticism.
Rorschach
The point is to try to tease out a possible explanation for Richard’s view of the EG matter. Sometimes explanations can be helpful. (I would like some explanations for some things right now, but I’m not going to get them, and that’s irritating.)
Ophelia,
we were all quite electrified by Maryam Namazie’s talk, and I can buy into the explanation that Dawkins wanted more of that and less of the issues Rebecca talked about, but interpreting his facial expressions is I reckon going a bit too far…:-) Then again, it’s elevatorgate, anything is possible, nothing is taboo :P
Weren’t we moving on to zombies already? This particular zombie issue is barely ambulatory and is dropping body parts faster than Obama ditched campaign promises.
From my lurking perspective, the debacle has been illuminating. I’m a rather passive European atheist, who enjoys browsing some of the atheist/sketical/scientific blogs and websites when time allows. This controversy led me to quite a few new blog discoveries, some of them with interesting perspectives. I’ve read a lot of commentary, even though it became repetitive fast.
On the issue itself, I’m probably still on the perspective bandwagon introduced without subtlety by Dawkins (and formulated better by Kirby). That doesn’t mean I’m immune to the arguments presented against that position. If there’s a sexism problem in atheist/skeptical circles, or “The Movement”, it should be addressed and solved. Instead, an anecdotal “Don’t do that” pebble was thrown, and hyperbole rode the smallish waves to privilege, sexism, and misogyny. Gathering evidence of sexism and presenting a solid case would have been more in line with a reason based organisation, and harder to ignore for even the most privileged men and women.
Still, I’m not that interested in the feminist issue beyond religious oppression and misogyny, nor determined to be an activist in “the movement”. So I’m hoping peace descends upon this issue and that other topics prevail.
Hi Ophelia,
To be contrary, and to show that there isn’t a straight-down the line fracture or polarisation of the skeptical/atheist community (what echo chamber?), I’d be unwilling to tease out explanations unless I had been there in person, given the amount of second-guessing that people are making of one another’s positions and assumptions (and I don’t really have the time to watch the full videos, so I will have to butt out of it). If anything, I’d rather hear from the man himself since he’s been completely silent since leaving three comments on Pharyngula – not that that should stop people from throwing Dawkins under the bus, or setting fire to a strawperson Dawkins.
Best regards, Philip
P.S. In the absence of emoticons, please take it as read that my disagreement is entirely amicable. Can I do this :) ?
Well, since we’re speculating. Maybe he disliked her perfume and she his cologne, subliminally. They were seated rather close on the dais. Or it’s all a big theatrical plot they hatched to boost their ratings and get some buzz, RD needing a distraction because his stump speech has gotten a bit stale and people were mouthing the lines with him, and RW needing an attention-getter because her stellar ascent had stalled at “I’m a woman in skepticism, which is rare, and the rare is intrinsically valuable, ergo my contributions must be valuable.” Celebrity isn’t as much fun as it seems. Lots of pressure.
Yeah, I see a lot of hilarity in it too. Especially when 700 children are dying of hunger every hour. The problems of two little egos don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday we’ll understand that.
Here’s another idea of what RD saw:Using the EG as an example of the oppressive sexism problem, without demonstrating that his motives were as assumed. Confirmation bias? Asking us to believe her assumptions because she *knows* what he meant and what he should have known, and her conclusions are sound because she just knows these things when she sees them, trust her. Appeal to authority? I object. Speculation! Hearsay! Irrelevant! Sustained. The jury will disregard the witness’s remarks. I move to acquit.Gossip, subjective impressions and mere assertions, with appeals to prejudice and paranoia, are not rational, respectable argument, unless you’re Johnny Cochran. The “I’m just asking certain people not to be like a certain guy, so you can’t be offended by my tactics” excuse doesn’t wash. It was an invitation to convict on hearsay, then insinuate feelings of guilt by association. That’s not serious, responsible leadership in a skeptical movement. It’s glib, passive-aggressive narcissism. Maybe that’s what Dawkins smelled and curled his lip at.
I’m not Richard Dawkins’ friend, don’t know him personally like some of you do. I’m also not a “follower” or into hero worship.
For that reason I personally have no more interest in working to tease out a favorable interpretation of his remarks any more than I’m inclined to behave like an MRA and try to tease out possible excuses for Elevator Guy’s (and other clueless men’s) behavior.
If Dawkins’ remarks were muddled or widely (almost universally) misinterpreted, if he feels they need to be rephrased, modified, apologized for or even underscored more forcefully, that’s up to him. If and when he chooses to do that, I’ll read what he has to say and take it into consideration, accept it, reject it, or “meh” it as the case may be.
Dawkins has a good rep on many issues that he has deservedly earned. That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have a big gaping blind spot somewhere. We’ve all had them. If he does have that blind spot, cops to it and works on it, good for him. If he muddled his words and didn’t mean at all what it seems like he meant, he can explain that. If he digs in instead, then I really don’t owe him any more consideration on this specific issue than I owe any random troll on the internet.
Hero worship leads to problems. Everyone is accountable for their actions.
For that reason I personally have no more interest in working to tease out a favorable interpretation of his remarks any more than I’m inclined to behave like an MRA and try to tease out possible excuses for Elevator Guy’s (and other clueless men’s) behavior.
Teasing out explanations isn’t the same things as teasing out favourable interpretations. I don’t think a favourable interpretation (of either) can be teased out without some pretty mind-bending mental gymanistics, but seeking out explanations of how people think what they think may turn out to be useful – either in further discussion, or in policy formation for the various orgs, or when someone else makes similar mistakes in future.I’m surprised that more people haven’t raised how Dawkins dismissed his own experience of being on the recieving end in The God Delusion. I’m still left curious as to why he was so charitable then, as he is now with respect to EG. (From memory, I was doing mandatory notification training around the time I was first sifting through The God Delusion with a fine-toothed comb, which probably made it even more conspicuous).
If that’s the case, then the atheist movement seems to be filled with people ready for the Mental Olympics.
Very few of the interpretations I’ve seen – and I’ve been reading the threads – could be described as favourable. And what would do you consider a favourable interpretation?In any case, I’m not sure that the more visible discussion is actually a representative sample of the atheist movement. A lot of people have been very cautious not to enter, or have limited their participation when actually joining in so I wouldn’t want to make a confident assertion based on anecdote, especially not amidst all this noise.’Filled’ is a bit of an exaggeration, especially when at least some people in the atheist movement happen to be tearing strips off Dawkins. ‘Contains an uncertain proportion of’ seems closer to the truth at this stage.
Hi Ophelia and thanks for the kind welcome back. I’m sorry for being quite harsh and overly strident in my former comments. I guess, for me, I just always viewed religious dogma as being the only excuse anyone might have for misogyny (as well as homophobia), and that if you take away the “holy scriptures,” these forms of bigotry would be held up to the light of logic and would find no further support. As I said on the other page, after having read many comments on this particular incident and just about anytime a woman mentions feminism, I was very shocked and disappointed that there are quite a few people who do support misogyny independent of religious thought. And perhaps it is because I have never attended an atheist conference in person, I simply thought that the women present would be treated with the kindness and respect which I have seen atheist men show women in my personal interactions. From some of the reports, this was a rather naive thought (or hope) on my part.
To Tea, I don’t think the issue was that he asked Ms. Watson for coffee; it was the time and location that was the problem, in addition to the fact that she specifically stated that she didn’t like to be hit on at such conferences. If he had asked her for a coffee in a cafe the next afternoon, I doubt that she would had felt disrespected. However, since RW is close to my age, I can imagine that she spent her youth in the 1990’s hearing people’s opinions on the Mike Tyson rape trial as I did, and it wasn’t pleasant. Just about everyone I knew made it more than clear that the woman must had known that Tyson expected sex (“Nobody goes to a man’s hotel room at 2:30 in the morning and doesn’t know what he wants”) and either deserved what happened or agreed to sex and was setting Tyson up. That case taught most women to NEVER go back to a man’s hotel room unless they were fully ready to have sex with that man, no matter what seemly innocent pretext. Also, even if a woman is very attracted to you and might be willing to have sex, she will usually require a bit more finesse and wooing than being propositioned immediately after “Hi.” You don’t have to be a genius to know that “coffee in my room” even at 4:00 p.m. means “let’s do it.” It is rather insulting, no matter what one’s stance on casual sex, to be thought of as being that easy.
I think that EG propositioned RW after her talk specifically addressing her desire not to be objectified because he suffered from “Neo Syndrome,” he thought that he was the “one” who would be just so irresistible that he could make her desire something with him that she would desire from no other man. Many people have this issue, from women who are certain that they could make George Clooney (or the local “bad boy”) settle down to men who are sure that they can “convert” lesbians to heterosexuality. I imagine this is why he didn’t heed her wishes in this matter. RW was quite clear on this, and perhaps everyone will come away, after having read about this incident, with the knowledge that when someone says he/she really doesn’t want something, don’t play the over bearing salesperson and continue to push forward.
The Mike Tyson trial – exactly. That’s been hovering at the edge of my thinking the whole time without quite coming into focus; thank you, Jenna.
This debate reminds me of a hamster wheel. If only it could be plugged to a generator.
There’s nothing left to uncloak, examine, or dissect regarding the comments by Dawkins, unless his next book is revealed as “Schrödinger’s Slut: A new sexist paradigm of atheism”.
Ever wonder what your “sacred cow” is? I have no idea what mine is. BUt if your making genuine arguments that propose RW had some nefarious purpose in her little video, then I think you have found yours. If your making real arguments that EGs behavior was perfectly fine and RW should just shut it. Well its a good bet you have found your sacred cow.
No idea? Really? I can think of several at least semi-sacred cows of mine. Egalitarianism for one; separateness of persons for another; human rights for another.
Good point. Nothing wrong with having (semi-)sacred cows. As long as your sacred cow isn’t a bunch of bull.
Of she did. She’s constantly trying to castrate men because she hates them.
I can think of 2 big ones (sacred cows) for me.; open criticism and redress of grievances (heh).
Here’s a comment I just left at Pharyngula:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/episode_ccxxiii_slow_calm_quie.php#comment-4379041
Some might find it of interest.
“No idea? Really? I can think of several at least semi-sacred cows of mine. Egalitarianism for one; separateness of persons for another; human rights for another.”
Hmm that is not what I meant by sacred cows, unless you think those things are irrational to believe in but you do so for personal reasons of your own which you can not articulate?
Related to this issue but slightly off track. The propensity to jump into such public blog wars and take highly emotional positions from which it is very difficult to later back down from. Rw sat next to RD at the Dublin conference. She could have sent him an email or phoned him for a clarification. yes he was being an ass but she could have tried to find out what he was thinking being such an idiot (I am assuming she has access to him in a way I dont). Steffi Mcgraw could have similarly approached RW personally with her biff and sorted it out. Why not give the people you do know, some leeway, some benefit of doubt, be somewhat temperate and cautious in your initial response?
like the bloke who sent Ophelia the nasty email yesterday- really why fly off the handle over such issues (maybe not really trivial but surely a relationship encompasses much more than such disagreements) and cause that kind of hurt?
How odd that you don’t ask why Dawkins jumped into a comment thread at Pharyngula to post his little screed about her rather than write to Watson personally.
What I think is disgusting is that here in the United States and America men are only allowed to have one wife, we let women vote and take office, abortion clinics are still open, rape whistles are sold openly, some women are allowed to speak in public even if they have husbands who should do it for them, and teenage girls are allowed to walk around dressed like sluts and there are guys whining about little things like whether or not they get to write the words “cunt” and “bitch” in comment threads on blog, or whether or not they have the right to proposition any woman at any time and under any circumstance whether she has shown any interest in him or not.
Take car of the big thing first, guys, and the little things will take care of themselves.
: D Mike
No, but I know they are basic commitments that are at least somewhat immune to disagreement, and that the reasons I can give for them are well short of knock-down arguments.
It’s as well to know we have some of those (those of us who do) and what they are, because it’s a very popular way to pounce on atheists – to say “Oh but you too have unshakable commitments that aren’t purely logical!” You don’t want to be taken by surprise by that.
» He’s implying that that’s what Rebecca thinks – that an invitation for coffee (as Richard mischaracterizes it) is worse than a total absence of rights. That’s a rude thing to imply.
Um, no, he did no such thing. If I may, I’ll just reproduce a comment from a thread at Bad Astronomy (which I recommend for the rather sensible and constructive responses) that takes up this issue:
There is one rather obvious observation missing from the picture. RW related an incident in an elevator, and as far as that situation goes, her reaction and her advice (“don’t do that”) are admirably level-headed and reasonable. She said she thought EG’s behaviour was slightly creepy; I would add that EG, upon seeing that she didn’t take his advance in the way he had hoped, should have apologized for the uncomfortable situation he (in all probability inadvertently) had put her in. And that’s as far as that situation goes, according to RW: she never mentioned danger, assault, or rape. In that regard, all the high-flying rhetoric [in the BA thread] about “potential rape” as well as “I can’t talk to women anymore” is pretty far off topic, if not completely overblown.
But RW didn’t leave the incident there: she *explicitly* said in her video it was an example of sexism and misogyny (which, just to be clear, means *hatred* of women). And *this* is what RD made reference to, saying that to use the word “misogyny” in the context of the elevator incident was seriously demeaning to any actual victims of actual misogyny. You don’t have to agree with that assessment, but at the very least it deserves a fair and open discussion. That he is being pilloried for lots of things that people think he implied, ignoring his explicit intent, is deplorable.
And regarding the actual elevator incident, RD didn’t even dismiss RW’s discomfort; he said it was on a level of his own discomfort when somebody is chewing gum next to him. Which means he explicitly acknowledges the discomfort. Now, it can be argued that it should go without saying that the situation entails more than just discomfort and that RD’s comparison was thus unfair. But that would have to be *argued*. In particular, the simple assertion that ‘that is what women feel’ is pretty patronizing and is simply shown to be false by the testimony of a significant number of women (in this thread [at BA] and elsewhere) who do not agree with the assertion. Which fact alone would amount to a pretty strong indication that RD’s comparison is not (at least not obviously) an example of gross insensitivity.
Some = People who are taken aback by calls to boycott Richard Dawkins or by people stating they have lost much or all of the respect they had for Dawkins–because it is completely hypocritical!
She? Don’t you mean he? Dawkins is the one who should have at the very least contacted his colleague Rebecca Watson to better understand her before dismissing her in such a meanspirited public way on Pharyngula!
And what’s this about having to talk privately with people before blogging about their public statements? This is not the way blogging is done by anyone so I don’t see why McGraw should be held to some new standard.
How odd that you don’t ask why Dawkins jumped into a comment thread at Pharyngula to post his little screed about her rather than write to Watson personally.
SC, that was remiss of me. Apologies, but I was trying to provide a couple of examples and those came to mind.
Regarding your comment about chucking it all in re the atheist movement. Please step back and reconsider it. The movement , such as it is, sorely needs women like you to challenge the abby smiths and paula kirbys who seem to be holding court in jerry coyne’s universe now.
Aratina,
Some people are more than blogging colleagues- they may be personal friends or at the least, have some Real Life contact. Maybe it is just me, maybe it is the Asian in me but I’d certainly treat people i know IRL differently from virtual contacts. I just cant get over how Stangroom treated Ophelia – a friend and collaborator- over an online dispute with a third party. Way to burn bridges and so fucking irrational.
Thanks. It also struck me in particular because in both Dawkins’ and McGraw’s cases, they weren’t even responding to anything that involved them personally, whereas Watson in both cases was responding specifically to public remarks about her. It would be unfair to expect her to respond privately (and giving the benefit of the doubt) to people who didn’t even try to ask her about their concerns before they publicly criticized her. I do think women are more generally expected to try to be the peacekeepers, which I’m not down with.
That’s one of the nicest things anyone’s said to me in a long while. Thank you so much.
I can’t get over that either, mirax, but I do think it is different here for all primary parties involved. For instance, I don’t think Watson and McGraw were actually acquainted IRL, and Watson and Dawkins have very few ties AFAIK other than sitting on some panels together. And really, I don’t think Watson had said anything at all about Dawkins before he launched into his triple face-kick on Pharyngula.
Erg, I don’t like how that came out. I mean that he was fighting with phantoms like in a video game since no one had ventured to say that we should ignore FGM or the plight of Muslim women and no one had sad anything bad about him prior to those three comments he left.
I don’t know enough about Abby Smith to comment, but I do know Paula Kirby. The idea that she would ‘hold court’ in any sense, or that she needs to be in anyone else’s ‘universe’ is ridiculous. I’m afraid I’m at a loss to understand why this kind of comment needs to be made. Can’t ideas be challenged without them?
Peter @ 105 – your comment is completely irrelevant to what I said because it’s based on what RD said later, while what I said was based on what he said at the beginning. It’s not true that (as you rather pugnaciously put it) “he did no such thing.” Yes he did, in the passage I quoted. The fact that he didn’t in the later passage you quoted is beside the point.
Oh, FFS. Will people stop this dumb, uncharitable, conclusion-jumping reading of people’s comments and searching for anything to pounce on? It’s transparent and annoying. mirax was responding to my comment above in which I linked to a post by Jerry Coyne featuring a video from the Dublin event in which a panel of women agreed that there was no serious problem with sexism in the movement, which Coyne basically ordered people to discuss without referring to the Watson affair (he even chastised someone for mentioning her name in pointing out that there were opposing views). The link was to a long and extraordinarily stupid comment by Kirby in that thread. No one said she “needs to be” in anyone else’s universe or anything like it.
Ophelia, in the very comment that you link to, RD explicitly states that his contribution is about the use of the word ‘misogyny’. He also does not imply that he thinks that RW thinks that her experience is worse than that of “Muslima”—unless you completely fail to see the point of irony. On the contrary, he says that RW thinks that her encounter had something to do with misogyny (which is obviously true since she explicitly said so) and that he thinks that that characterisation is devaluing the term, given the experiences of unquestionable hate towards women in his example.
Do you still think this is “completely irrelevant”? (Which, to be honest, I found a little pugnacious.)
Peter, no he didn’t, not in the first comment, which is the one you quoted me quoting when you corrected me. In the first “contribution” he didn’t explicitly say anything, which of course was part of the problem from the outset.
Have a look at it again, Ophelia. You didn’t quote that part, but it is there, at the beginning of the last paragraph of RD’s first contribution: “And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about!” I’d say, that makes it pretty obvious what he is talking about, especially given the fact, which curiously hardly anyone acknowledges, that RW explicitly gave the elevator incident as an example of misogyny. If RD then takes up the explicitly stated theme of RW’s video, you think that is somehow irrelevant?
You mean, you think that makes it obvious that he was talking about misogyny and not talking about being arrested for driving and being required to have a male guardian and stoning and forced marriage?
It doesn’t. That’s not at all obvious to me. It’s obvious to me that he was talking primarily about the latter. He was talking about much harsher real-world consequences of misogyny and implying that Rebecca didn’t see them as much harsher. That was the whole point – otherwise his comment would have been totally random.
This is a quote from the bad astronomy thread, and yes the poster is serious.
I think at this point the subject has jumped the shark and gone into pure crazy land.
One of the reasons why so many thought it had to be some random troll.
Peter Beattie, you’re being ridiculous. As John Rennie asys in the post I linked to above:
It’s in this sense that she linked it to the broader problems, and she did it in the most mild possible manner, never suggesting that this was an example of the most extreme or harmful sexism or misogyny – just that it (the obtuseness to women’s thoughts and feelings that conflict with your desires) is part of a pattern. Someone could possibly not recognize that a late-night elevator proposition would produce fear or discomfort, which is why she explained it. But you’d have to be not just clueless but extraordinarily stupid not to understand an entire talk about not wanting to be sexualized or objectified or what the words “I’m done. I’m going to sleep” mean. No one can seriously argue that this guy was that stupid. Just knock off this tiresome nonsense.
Oh, we’re well into the spinoffs, and the spinoffs of the spinoffs.
If Dawkins really wanted to just say that he wanted more addressing of serious concerns about women’s right in the international arena, such as voting rights, driving rights, FGM, rape, etc., then he could have just said so without also belittling Watson’s concerns.
If that is in fact what he really meant, then he should be held responsible for his total failure of communication.
He should also be held responsible for explaining why less talk about how misogyny plays out in ordinary, everyday interpersonal reactions is going to help us have more talk about international women’s rights issues. Seriously, if an ex-Muslim woman is going to come to an atheist conference and give a speech, she too is going to wish to avoid random come-ons from strangers in enclosed spaces late at night. I don’t see how avoiding the one issue is going to create any more space for the other. If anything, making atheist conferences welcoming and pleasant spaces for ALL women, not just women who love being propositioned at every corner, is going to increase the opportunities for more discussion about “serious” women’s issues.
Yes the sharks are so last Wednesday. By now we’re into jumping the great-great-great grandchildren of the shark. And Justicar Whosis thinks he has died and gone to heaven – all these people lapping up his ugly bilge! The bliss of it!
I’m really just curious as to whether you still agree with Miranda’s position that the letters posted to Dawkins are (I quote):
Because in his third comment on Pharyngula, Dawkins explicitly asked for politely worded letters explaining what he “didn’t get” and got wrong, and for the most part, that is precisely what I’ve seen. I certainly haven’t seen anything from the letters which quite merits the words above, even though the MRA contingent have jumped on the whole schmeer with glee.
I never did agree with Miranda’s position – certainly not with that version of it. I think some of what Rebecca said was over the top – especially the stuff about RD’s being white and rich and old.
I’m rather glad to hear that, but confused, because that was actually what you linked to when you wrote “I agree with Miranda about the Skepchick campaign.” at http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/focus/.
Sorry, glad to hear that you didn’t agree with Miranda’s position, in case that wasn’t clear. (Should use review function more. Bad cat.)
I overstated it.
I’ve had people shouting at me all week. I wish I’d never said a word about the whole god damn thing. I’ve had people talking to me as if I were three years old and caught with the chocolate cake spread all over my face. I’ve had people doing things I would never do in a million years, and I’m supposed to be such a shit.
I don’t care any more. Fuck it. They can all put on bikinis and get their pictures taken for Atheist Hotties calendars and fuck each other’s brains out in elevators and eat shrimp after sundown; I do not care.
[…] have lots of Davids, so it might be confusing if I just said David, as if you would know which one) asked in a comment the other day Ever wonder what your “sacred cow” is? I have no idea what mine […]