How can Dawkins redeem himself?

[bookitty]

Perhaps not. Morality is a social construct. If society deems it okay then my opinion won't supersede the social contract.

{snipped the rest as it is entirely superfluous. I did read it and I do respect your opinion but it has no bearing on anything}

Actually, it does. Think back through the threads. Skip the sexism, it's a side bar. Quite a few people have mentioned that they are, or their group has many social inept people. Some people have mentioned being made uncomfortable in a gender-neutral, not sexual way.

The rules of engagement within the skeptical community have been drawn around a perverted idea of "rationality," except that instead of using the scientific method (Subject, evidence, then hypothesis, then experiment to test the hypothesis, analyze results, repeat whenever new information shows up) they examine it as if it were in a courtroom setting. (Subject, evidence for subject, argument over validity of evidence, analyze remaining evidence, form conclusion, repeat when new information appears)

It is a system that prides itself on never taking anything on good faith, even if the information comes from a trusted source. It is a system that that ignores any bigger picture because it can not be "proven" and then reviews parts and pieces until they have been so winnowed from the whole that they have lost all meaning.

This creates an unnecessarily hostile environment. It also slams the door shut on any complaints that have a social basis. Social conflicts are simply too complex to survive an unraveling on the microscopic level. We don't always know why we are repelled by something. It can be informed by an unlimited number of social constructs, outside bias, shared history, etc. There is no one answer, there is no simple explanation. If there is a problem within the community, the skeptical method is useless in solving it.

Anyone who is put off by some aspect of skepticism as a movement, will never be taken seriously. Courtesy is superseded by false authority created by the "skeptical method." If the problem is related to marginalization (Not impossible in a group that has historically been created, led and populated with white, middle-class, middle-aged males) the skeptical method will make it worse because tearing down a complaint into ridiculous little pieces is dismissing it.

 

[Nursefoxfire]

As far as bookitty's movie theater example, I don't think that can be compared to this elevator incident.

It has NEVER been socially acceptable to talk in a theater (with certain exceptions, like The Room!). Someone chatting up a person they're interested in (or find interesting in a general way) CAN be socially acceptable. Yes, even at 4 in the morning in an elevator. That's how we socially interact with each other.

Annoying other theater patrons is NOT a type of social interaction.

 

[AlBell]

I was on an elevator yesterday, alone with a man <collective gasp!> He gave me one of those shrug smiles that sort of recognizes that elevators are just a little odd and that nobody knows what to say. I smiled back in an agreeing sort of way and that was it. It was really nice, actually. I waved on the way out.

I'm surprised he didn't follow you off to ask if you'd like to have a cup of coffee.

 

[RandFan]

Actually, it does.

No.

Quite a few people have mentioned that they are, or their group has many social inept people.

And?

Some people have mentioned being made uncomfortable in a gender-neutral, not sexual way.

And?

The rules of engagement within the skeptical community have been drawn around a perverted idea of "rationality," except that instead of using the scientific method...

Bob: Would you like to go out?
Sue: I must compute....
Bob: Okay, and?
Sue: Employing scientific method. Computing.
Bob: Okay, I'll wait.
Sue: Please fill out forms. Please provide blood and urine samples.

Bookitty, I'm happy to have just about any discussion. I really am. I like discussion and debate. In fact, I think that if elevatorgate has a silver lining then it's that people will discuss these issues. I want women to express themselves and I applaud RW for expressing herself. I just think she did it really, really badly. I think Dawkins had a point. I think he made it badly. Not just badly but he engaged in fallacy. A no no, in "our community".

I'll discuss the merits and various issues with you. I won't get into a debate with someone who insists that the issue only be viewed from their perspective.

1. EG did nothing that was intrinsically or demonstrably wrong (though you and I might agree that it was fraught with landmines).
2. Rebecca, IMHO, had every right to ask people not to objectify her.
3. She had every right, IMHO, to ask people not to hit on her in certain situations.
4. She had every right to say that what EG did bothered her.
5. What I take issue with is when she speaks in absolute terms about the propriety of what EG did and/or to presume to speak on behalf of every woman.

This isn't complicated. No need for you to try and make it so.

 

[bookitty]

I'm surprised he didn't follow you off to ask if you'd like to have a cup of coffee.

I'm not. Most of the time, human beings are happy just being blandly nice to each other. Even Watson said that everyone else at the conference was great, there was just that one guy.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not. Most of the time, human beings are happy just being blandly nice to each other. Even Watson said that everyone else at the conference was great, there was just that one guy.

And every woman that lives would have reacted the same way as RW and every decent man would never have done what EG did?

If that is what you meant (if not I apologize for the straw man) then that's a level of solipsism that I just can't get to. It violates everything I understand about skepticism and critical thinking.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'm not. Most of the time, human beings are happy just being blandly nice to each other. Even Watson said that everyone else at the conference was great, there was just that one guy.

Which kinda brings us back to the point.

Her video wasn't a feminist manifesto, it was just a "hey don't approach me like this, your welcome." And the initial response was similarly mundane, along the lines of "yeah, but some women don't mind being approached like that, so don't be too harsh." It was Watson's response to this that set off the tirades of back and forth.

I've noticed that you have stuck mainly to discussing the elevator incident. It is what Rebecca tends to get back to when she talks about this as well. I really think the discussion there is rather pedantic and mundane. I can see both sides and it seems to have played out as expected. No shock, some women will balk at that approach, some men are clueless, water is wet. Then there are more assumptions stemming off from the very brief description of the facts, because lets face it you really would need to know more to make a decision, but we want to make a decision so we fill in the blanks. Whatever, it is not all that interesting. Let's say I agree with Watson on what her original video said for no other reason than I have no facts that would lead me to disagree.

The real shock to me was Rebecca's "sit down and shut up" response to Stef and anyone else who discussed her original post without agreeing full stop.

Do you think that is a fair representation of the sort of skepticism Skepchick is working for? Get in line we'll tell you what to think. Was that the sort of treatment that will attract more young women to Skeptical events? Hey, come hear a speaker rip into you about a blog post you made! Don't worry, we'll give you a 20 second rebuttal in the Q&A!

 

[bookitty]

No.

And?

And?

Bob: Would you like to go out?
Sue: I must compute....
Bob: Okay, and?
Sue: Employing scientific method. Computing.
Bob: Okay, I'll wait.
Sue: Please fill out forms. Please provide blood and urine samples.

Bookitty, I'm happy to have just about any discussion. I really am. I like discussion and debate. In fact, I think that if elevatorgate has a silver lining then it's that people will discuss these issues. I want women to express themselves and I applaud RW for expressing herself. I think she did it really, really badly. I think Dawkins had a point. I think he made it badly. Not just badly but he engaged in fallacy. A no no, in "our community".

I'll discuss the merits and various issues with you. I won't get into a debate where one side insists that the issue can only be one valid POV.

1. EG did nothing that was intrinsically or demonstrably wrong (though you and I might agree that it was fraught with landmines.
2. Rebecca had every right to ask people not to objectify her.
3. She had every right to ask people not to hit on her in certain situations.
4. She had every right to say that what EG did bothered her.
5. What I take issue with is when she speaks in absolute terms about the propriety of what EG did and/or to presume to speak on behalf of every woman.

This isn't complicated. No need for you to try and make it so.

Again, you are treating the situation as unique when it was illustrative. Watson saw a problem within the skeptical community that she addressed using EG as the example.

Watson has access to many different areas of the free-thought community. She has been the speaker at many different types of conferences. She has attended local events in different countries. She is co-host on a popular skeptical podcast and of a popular skeptical website. Within those two roles she interacts with many, many skeptics on a daily basis.

She has access to a much broader view, far more people and a greater variety of types. She was saying that the problem is there, not on a single elevator. She is not speaking for all women, any more than she is speaking to all men.

Making this about Watson's response to EG is that "picking apart in order to dismiss" strategy that is as much a part of the broader skeptical community as Carl Sagan t-shirts.

 

[RemieV]

I'm not. Most of the time, human beings are happy just being blandly nice to each other. Even Watson said that everyone else at the conference was great, there was just that one guy.

I believe you're taking Watson's word a little too seriously.

The issue that I have with her is her intellectual dishonesty in all FOLLOW-UPS to the video. She jumped on the 'could have been rape' bandwagon as soon as the issue started to gather heat.

There's actually an extension of this that people who aren't on Twitter may have missed. I don't think anyone has mentioned this in the thread, and my apologies if I'm wrong. Now, I'm going to assume that relaying the whole thing isn't against the rules because I'm not actually communicating on behalf of a banned member, but am relating a story regarding a well-known skeptic, just like the rest of the thread is. But who knows, right?

So, on Twitter, a guy I won't name because I'm not sure he's around to defend himself mentioned that he was going to be at TAM and said something along the lines of, "Man, if I wind up on an elevator with RW, I'm totally copping a feel!"

He didn't use the @ function, and, I'm assuming, didn't plan on RW searching her name on Twitter often enough to actually see the post. He was making a joke in poor taste, and nothing more.

But RW did see the post. And she responded "Oh, so-and-so thinks it would be funny to molest me." Like real indignation. Then RW's followers grouped together and made actual threats of physical violence against the original poster.

Additionally, they contacted an organization he volunteered with (it was listed on his Twitter profile) and insistently told them that this guy thinks rape is funny. They did this until the guy was forced to resign.

Then the JREF gave the guy an official warning on Twitter, from the official JREF account, in a public post, telling him that if he attempted to assault any of the speakers, he would be kicked out of the conference without a refund.

Then the code of conduct was released.

How is that not just a dramafest of epic proportions? And now there's an article on Skepchick claiming that RW received all these rape threats after the Dawkins article. I don't have access to her inbox, so who knows, maybe it's true. But I can tell you this - I paid extremely close attention to her Twitter feed in the weeks before TAM, and paid extremely close attention to every post that mentioned her. And I saw her claiming that people were saying things like that over and over again - and I mean in real time, because I was spending hella time on the computer doing other things and updating my Twitter feed every few minutes - and none of the people she claimed were making threats actually were. I could see what they had said, read the full conversations. No one was deleting posts (except, oddly, the Skepchick followers who were deleting the physical violence threats pretty much as soon as they were made), the assessment that the posts were threatening was overdramatization and nothing more.

This Twitter guy, like Dawkins, said something without fully thinking through the ramifications (ie: It's on the internet, and people are going to twist it), and the same thing happened. Drama, drama, drama, you MISOGYNIST!

 

[bookitty]

And every woman that lives would have reacted the same way as RW and every decent man would never have done what EG did?

If that is what you meant (if not I apologize for the straw man) then that's a level of solipsism that I just can't get to. It violates everything I understand about skepticism and critical thinking.

No I was saying, without subtext, that most people are happy being blandly nice to each other. Even Watson experienced this because only one person (out of many) made her uncomfortable. Most people there were happy with being blandly nice.

 

[RandFan]

Again, you are treating the situation as unique when it was illustrative.

No and I've already dealt with that.

Watson saw a problem within the skeptical community that she addressed using EG as the example.

For which I said, on many occasions, "I applaud her for that". What is it that you don't get?

Making this about Watson's response to EG is that "picking apart in order to dismiss" strategy that is as much a part of the broader skeptical community as Carl Sagan t-shirts.

1. I DON'T dismiss RW's point. On the contrary, I've said time and again I think it's something we should discuss.
2. I'm not simply "making this about Watson's response". I think her response worthy of discussion. I think Dawkins' response is worthy of discussion. I don't take anything off of the table.

Please stop making my position into something it is not.

 

[Captain Obvious]

...a cup of coffee.

I must, despite myself, applaud Rebecca's good taste in rejecting him; the guy was obviously either stupid or cheap.

Any fool knows that if you want hotel sex with Rebecca Watson you must at least mention the mini-bar.

 

[RandFan]

No I was saying, without subtext, that most people are happy being blandly nice to each other. Even Watson experienced this because only one person (out of many) made her uncomfortable. Most people there were happy with being blandly nice.

Making someone uncomfortable doesn't preclude being blandly nice. I've no idea what your point is. I apologize if I'm being rude but honestly, I don't think you know what your point is.

 

[Mycroft]

As far as bookitty's movie theater example, I don't think that can be compared to this elevator incident.

It has NEVER been socially acceptable to talk in a theater (with certain exceptions, like The Room!). Someone chatting up a person they're interested in (or find interesting in a general way) CAN be socially acceptable. Yes, even at 4 in the morning in an elevator. That's how we socially interact with each other.

Annoying other theater patrons is NOT a type of social interaction.

I think the disconnect here is in the understanding of the event itself.

Hitting on a woman in an elevator at 4 am isn't inherently wrong. It was annoying to RW in that specific circumstance because she had just finished talking about how she didn't want to be sexualized in that way where EG had heard her say that.

So hitting on a woman is not sexist, it's just part of normal human mating behavior. Hitting on a woman who just said she didn't want to be hit on is at the very least inconsiderate.

I also think RW's reaction is being overblown. She didn't say the guy was evil or anything, she just said, "Hey, don't do that" which I read as a mild expression of annoyance.

 

[bookitty]

I believe you're taking Watson's word a little too seriously.

The issue that I have with her is her intellectual dishonesty in all FOLLOW-UPS to the video. She jumped on the 'could have been rape' bandwagon as soon as the issue started to gather heat.

There's actually an extension of this that people who aren't on Twitter may have missed. I don't think anyone has mentioned this in the thread, and my apologies if I'm wrong. Now, I'm going to assume that relaying the whole thing isn't against the rules because I'm not actually communicating on behalf of a banned member, but am relating a story regarding a well-known skeptic, just like the rest of the thread is. But who knows, right?

So, on Twitter, a guy I won't name because I'm not sure he's around to defend himself mentioned that he was going to be at TAM and said something along the lines of, "Man, if I wind up on an elevator with RW, I'm totally copping a feel!"

He didn't use the @ function, and, I'm assuming, didn't plan on RW searching her name on Twitter often enough to actually see the post. He was making a joke in poor taste, and nothing more.

But RW did see the post. And she responded "Oh, so-and-so thinks it would be funny to molest me." Like real indignation. Then RW's followers grouped together and made actual threats of physical violence against the original poster.

Additionally, they contacted an organization he volunteered with (it was listed on his Twitter profile) and insistently told them that this guy thinks rape is funny. They did this until the guy was forced to resign.

Then the JREF gave the guy an official warning on Twitter, from the official JREF account, in a public post, telling him that if he attempted to assault any of the speakers, he would be kicked out of the conference without a refund.

Then the code of conduct was released.

How is that not just a dramafest of epic proportions? And now there's an article on Skepchick claiming that RW received all these rape threats after the Dawkins article. I don't have access to her inbox, so who knows, maybe it's true. But I can tell you this - I paid extremely close attention to her Twitter feed in the weeks before TAM, and paid extremely close attention to every post that mentioned her. And I saw her claiming that people were saying things like that over and over again - and I mean in real time, because I was spending hella time on the computer doing other things and updating my Twitter feed every few minutes - and none of the people she claimed were making threats actually were. I could see what they had said, read the full conversations. No one was deleting posts (except, oddly, the Skepchick followers who were deleting the physical violence threats pretty much as soon as they were made), the assessment that the posts were threatening was overdramatization and nothing more.

This Twitter guy, like Dawkins, said something without fully thinking through the ramifications (ie: It's on the internet, and people are going to twist it), and the same thing happened. Drama, drama, drama, you MISOGYNIST!

"Copping a feel" has just a wee hint of misogyny, no? Like the subtle fishy flavor that enhances escargot, it's not the main attraction but it's still there. And it's visual enough to squick some people out. (I wouldn't have gotten in an elevator with him.)

The response was utterly ridiculous. It would have been fair for the JREF to contact this person privately with a "please do not grab the speakers" request, if only to cover their own asses.* Making it public was completely out of proportion. As was the response of the skepchicks.

So now we have two completely different issues - leftover sexism from earlier incarnations of the freethought movement (I've been calling it Mensa, with magicians!) and an overly emotional response to that leftover sexism. (emotions, filthy things.)

It's a bit of a reach to say that this left-over sexism doesn't exist. Even Dawkins didn't deny it, he only said that it was unimportant. The argument now is over degree. If the world was all fluffy kittens and rainbows, that would be the focus of the conversation - Yes it's there, what steps can be taken, or shall we let time work it's inevitable magic (and might we point to speakers & attendance at TAM for proof that this option is valid.)

But the world gasses excess kittens and rainbows are optical phenomena. That conversation is popping up but never the focus. There are either people who agree who are receiving the same treatment, or people who disagree who are dismissive, and worse - dismissive because it is more amusing to argue than to listen.

The people who have been affected by residual sexism feel that no one cares. That they are being thrown to the wolves and the wolves want to cop a feel. They are fighting back because there is no system within the freethought movement that allows them to be simply heard and given a simple response. As this has escalated they have become desperate to make the point and have resorted to ridiculous exaggerated tactics. Which are then being used to prove that they should be dismissed and another cycle begins.

*Speaking of covering asses, the TAM code of conduct was drawn up before elevator gate. It was in response to something besides Watson's experience.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I get your point. In keeping with my history I've miss judged the intentions of posters here at least three times now. Which, as I noted earlier, is rather ironic given the context of the discussion.

However, I really did take bookitty as wanting to have a sincere discussions regarding the merits of the various positions. Oh well.

Many of us, myself included, have been trying to have a serious discussion with Bookitty and I haven't given up entirely. But she reads something different than was actually posted again and again. The majority, by far, of her replies include straw men that were never said.

I would be happy just to have her recognize that she builds straw men to argue against. But she seems to never register what the problem is.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.....
So hitting on a woman is not sexist, it's just part of normal human mating behavior. Hitting on a woman who just said she didn't want to be hit on is at the very least inconsiderate.

We still have nothing but RW's speculation that EG heard said comments and/or understood the message the way RW insists he must have. According to RW, "I'm going to bed" contained an awful lot more information between the lines that she was certain everyone was obligated to understand.

.....I also think RW's reaction is being overblown. She didn't say the guy was evil or anything, she just said, "Hey, don't do that" which I read as a mild expression of annoyance.

Her negative opinion of EG's actions did grow in her subsequent comments to the level of 'sexist objectification' of her.

 

[RemieV]

Bookitty, I believe the end part of this was added with special regard to the RW stuff:

Please respect your fellow attendees by not disparaging them based on unfair grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability; and by not making uninvited sexual comments toward others.

I don't have any real reason to believe so, other than that it doesn't fit with the rest in the sense of grammar and syntax.

 

[Dr. Keith]

"Copping a feel" has just a wee hint of misogyny, no? Like the subtle fishy flavor that enhances escargot, it's not the main attraction but it's still there. And it's visual enough to squick some people out. (I wouldn't have gotten in an elevator with him.)

Agreed.

The response was utterly ridiculous.

And that is what most people are focusing on. Not because the sexism is not there, but because the absurd response to it is more sensational.

So now we have two completely different issues - leftover sexism from earlier incarnations of the freethought movement (I've been calling it Mensa, with magicians!) and an overly emotional response to that leftover sexism. (emotions, filthy things.)

The bolded part is nice. Thanks!

Also, I would posit that the second is detracting from the first.

It's a bit of a reach to say that this left-over sexism doesn't exist. Even Dawkins didn't deny it, he only said that it was unimportant. The argument now is over degree. If the world was all fluffy kittens and rainbows, that would be the focus of the conversation - Yes it's there, what steps can be taken, or shall we let time work it's inevitable magic (and might we point to speakers & attendance at TAM for proof that this option is valid.)

But the world gasses excess kittens and rainbows are optical phenomena. That conversation is popping up but never the focus. There are either people who agree who are receiving the same treatment, or people who disagree who are dismissive, and worse - dismissive because it is more amusing to argue than to listen.

And more to my favorite point: people who agree on the whole but would debate the particulars and therefore are shown the door by the feminist figure heads. Toe the line!

The people who have been affected by residual sexism feel that no one cares. That they are being thrown to the wolves and the wolves want to cop a feel. They are fighting back because there is no system within the freethought movement that allows them to be simply heard and given a simple response. As this has escalated they have become desperate to make the point and have resorted to ridiculous exaggerated tactics. Which are then being used to prove that they should be dismissed and another cycle begins.

In that fight you have to choose your leaders and your allies. RW appears to be neither. She is only accepting obedient followers and doesn't really seemed to be concerned with opening skepticism up to anyone.

ETA: My post 347 in this thread ended with a question I don't recall you addressing. I'd really like your take.

 

[bookitty]

No and I've already dealt with that.

For which I said, on many occasions, "I applaud her for that". What is it that you don't get?

1. I DON'T dismiss RW's point. On the contrary, I've said time and again I think it's something we should discuss.
2. I'm not simply "making this about Watson's response". I think her response worthy of discussion. I think Dawkins' response is worthy of discussion. I don't take anything off of the table.

Please stop making my position into something it is not.

You are leaving out Watson's greater experience with many different aspects of the movement. Again, she has experience with the movement as a whole. How people talk, act, respond in a variety of different setting from lectures to pub-gatherings.

She used the EG example to highlight a problem she sees in this larger group. Because it is an example, it can not be absolute. Anymore than an analogy would be absolute. It is an example, something that she felt would have enough general points of empathy that the message not the specifics would be understood. She was wrong.

I would also like to see any evidence of the oft-repeated claim that she is talking for all women or to all men. Saying there is a problem in a group is not the same thing as saying that everyone in the group is the problem or that everyone is affected.