How can Dawkins redeem himself?

[bookitty]

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



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.

Last year, I was warned away from specific people before I met them. I also complained about sexual comments to people associate with the JREF. Not official complaints because they were JREF, more like "Holy Moly! Did that just happen!"

This isn't exactly new.

 

[RandFan]

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]

You are leaving out Watson's greater experience with many different aspects of the movement.

No. One more time. I'm happy to discuss that. I don't dismiss anything out of hand. Regardless , her "greater" experience doesn't change the facts for anyone but her.

She used the EG example to highlight a problem she sees in this larger group.

One - more -time. I'm fine with that. It's not at issue.

Because it is an example, it can not be absolute.

Therein lies the problem. If you can come to understand fully the ramifications of that then I think you will be happier.

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.

I've no problem with that.

She was wrong.

No. She was not wrong. She made her case very badly.

I would also like to see any evidence of the oft-repeated claim that she is talking for all women or to all men.

She made zero effort to disabuse anyone of the notion. Her rhetoric was such that it left no room to assume otherwise.

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.

And this is a straw man. Try again.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Last year, I was warned away from specific people before I met them. I also complained about sexual comments to people associate with the JREF. Not official complaints because they were JREF, more like "Holy Moly! Did that just happen!"

This isn't exactly new.

Yeah, someone already mentioned the whole bordello thing. Others showed some pretty embarrassing pictures. Apparently sexual references are a bit rampant at these events. Don't know, never been.

 

[RandFan]

Last year, I was warned away from specific people before I met them. I also complained about sexual comments to people associate with the JREF. Not official complaints because they were JREF, more like "Holy Moly! Did that just happen!"

This isn't exactly new.

And why should we think that your judgements about propriety should supersede all others? Are you not now presuming to speak on everyone's behalf? Didn't the people who warned you about "specific people" presume much about you? Or did they know your sentiments in this area and felt such a warning was justified? Do you think the warning justified for all people?

This is my problem, there is a level of solipsism that presupposes that no social etiquette could deviate from their own subjective sensibilities. I suspect that I'm likely to agree with your sensibilities bookitty, the difference is that I don't assume that my sensibilities are objective or absolute.

 

[bookitty]

Agreed.



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.



The bolded part is nice. Thanks!

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



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!



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.

Re: 347, I've been avoiding that not because I don't have an opinion but because this discussion is hard enough without worrying about being misquoted.

To review:

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!

Making the point that apology for sexism within the movement can come from the movement itself and from those that you would trust to be your allies is a valid point. Especially if we are talking about the sort of residual sexism that comes from habit and is infinitely more absent-minded than malicious. It can be subtle and pervasive. Watson's response to mcGraw was not STFU but a rebuttal of points McGraw had raised. She never said "Do not say these things." She said "You are wrong here because.., here because..., etc." That is not silencing a person, that is disagreement. the same thing that all these threads are doing.

I've also spent quite a lot of energy defending the DBAD from the "don't" side. The reaction for those who disagree boils down to this - Being a dick gets people's attention and your message is heard. It is a tool for skeptics to use when being a tool will get the point across. Also, there are times when dickishness is the only possible response.

Watson was a dick. Straight-up, no apologies. I (personally, just speaking for myself) think that calling out a college student from the podium is unnecessarily harsh and my heart breaks for that girl. Even if she has rebounded nicely, to be in that room at that moment must have been hell. I would not have done it, I would much rather Watson had found a gentler way to make her point.

But if there are no limitations to Do Be A Dick, it is hypocritical to blame Watson for using this tactic.

 

[Number Six]

That's the third time I've seen the word "solipsism" in the last 50 posts or so. I'm going to go look it up. I've seen it before but not enough for it to stick in my brain what it means.

 

[RandFan]

That's the third time I've seen the word "solipsism" in the last 50 posts or so. I'm going to go look it up. I've seen it before but not enough for it to stick in my brain what it means.

Careful. The way it is being used here isn't the traditional sense. The first time I heard it used this way was by Hitchens and it drove me nuts until I did some further study. YMMV.

There is a gradient from believing that you are the only mind that exists to there are other minds that exist and they have a different world view than you do. The closer you are to the "my mind is the only that exists" the more solipsistic that you are.

 

[bookitty]

And why should we think that your judgements about propriety should supersede all others? Are you not now presuming to speak on everyone's behalf? Didn't the people who warned you about "specific people" presume much about you? Or did they know your sentiments in this area and felt such a warning was justified? Do you think the warning justified for all people?

This is my problem, there is a level of solipsism that presupposes that no social etiquette could deviate from their own subjective sensibilities. I suspect that I'm likely to agree with your sensibilities bookitty, the difference is that I don't assume that my sensibilities are objective or absolute.

The people who warned me, warned a number of women because they had been to TAM before and knew how these individuals acted. If there was a person at TAM who got very angry and aggressive every time the subject of UFO's came up, people might have warned me about them as well. because if you know that they always do that, you don't take it personally and you can respond more logically. This is hardly relegated to the skeptical community. People do it all the time, for example, when one of their friends has an anti-social habit, they will mention it before a new person meets them.

As for my sensibilities, a man asked me if it was true that my female friend was 'into skeptics," I jokingly replied that most of the people here were 'into skeptics" or they wouldn't be there. He then asked if I would get my companion drunk and he would take it from there. I still don't know if he was joking. There was nothing in his tone to indicate it.

Perhaps this really is your idea of the sort of behavior that is permissible at a large conference dedicated to science and rationality. I found it offensive.

 

[RandFan]

If there was a person at TAM who got very angry and aggressive every time the subject of UFO's came up...

I suspect that you think that this clarifies something. It doesn't. I think the vast majority of us would like to avoid that, I COULD be wrong. What exactly are you saying though? That discussions of a frank sexual nature are akin to aggressive behavior? Really?

Perhaps this really is your idea of the sort of behavior that is permissible at a large conference dedicated to science and rationality. I found it offensive.

You are NOT LISTENING. Sheesh. How many times must I tell you that my sentiments are likely very similar to yours in a number of ways. Please focus.

Let's try this. Regarding the context of this discussion--

1. Do you know what my position is?
2. Can you state it in a single sentence?
3. Do you know what your position is?
4. Can you state it in a single sentence?

I don't know but I have a sneaking suspicion that you aren't going to be able to do 2 & 4. If I'm wrong then fully apologize up front.

 

[bookitty]

I suspect that you think that this clarifies something. It doesn't. I think the vast majority of us would like to avoid that, I COULD be wrong. What exactly are you saying though? That discussions of a frank sexual nature are akin to aggressive behavior? Really?

You are NOT LISTENING. Sheesh. How many times must I tell you that my sentiments are likely very similar to yours in a number of ways. Please focus.

Let's try this. Regarding the context of this discussion--

1. Do you know what my position is?
2. Can you state it in a single sentence?
3. Do you know what your position is?
4. Can you state it in a single sentence?

I don't know but I have a sneaking suspicion that you aren't going to be able to do 2 & 4. If I'm wrong then fully apologize up front.

You summed it up here:

And why should we think that your judgements about propriety should supersede all others?

Any judgement of behavior is purely subjective, no-one has the right to ask for specific courtesy.

Mine: The skeptical community is using a version of propriety/courtesy that was adequate but is no longer because the demographics have changed.

 

[RemieV]

FWIW, there are real examples of completely inappropriate behaviour at conferences that no one would disagree with. A couple TAMs ago, for instance, a guy was going around sticking his tongue in random people's mouths - out of nowhere.

But that's absolutely nothing like RW's complaint. RW's complaint has nothing to do with feminism or sexism - only with social grace. The example above, on the other hand...

 

[bookitty]

FWIW, there are real examples of completely inappropriate behaviour at conferences that no one would disagree with. A couple TAMs ago, for instance, a guy was going around sticking his tongue in random people's mouths - out of nowhere.

But that's absolutely nothing like RW's complaint. RW's complaint has nothing to do with feminism or sexism - only with social grace. The example above, on the other hand...

it's impossible to convey how funny I find this last bit of posting.

"Just because you might have thought something was offensive doesn't mean everyone will!"

"Someone asked me to help him date rape my friend. I found that offensive."

<ignores date rape> Can we please go back to talking about my important opinion about this issue.

Rand, I'm not singling you out. There have been so many of these surreal little terrarium versions of this whole issue. Pocket-sized summaries that would fit nicely in a sunny window and need so little watering.

 

[RandFan]

Mine: The skeptical community is using a version of propriety/courtesy that was adequate but is no longer because the demographics have changed.

Okay, fair enough. It may very well have. Why do you think it has?

 

[RemieV]

it's impossible to convey how funny I find this last bit of posting.

"Just because you might have thought something was offensive doesn't mean everyone will!"

"Someone asked me to help him date rape my friend. I found that offensive."

<ignores date rape> Can we please go back to talking about my important opinion about this issue.

Rand, I'm not singling you out. There have been so many of these surreal little terrarium versions of this whole issue. Pocket-sized summaries that would fit nicely in a sunny window and need so little watering.

You do realize that post was by me, and not Rand, right? And that I am not participating in the little war between the two of you?

 

[bookitty]

Okay, fair enough. It may very well have. Why do you think it has?

Because of media influence (Penn & Teller, Mythbusters) the popularity of science-related blogging (Pharynigula, Science Based Medicine), the influx of well-written and engaging female skeptical bloggers (skepchick, Greta Christina, Blaghag), the mainstream coverage of social movements from the skeptical community (draw Mohammad day, boob quake), the overlap of science with social issues (Global warming, anti-vax), the overlap of atheism and science (creationism), and the general rise of the nerds.

For a start.

 

[bookitty]

You do realize that post was by me, and not Rand, right? And that I am not participating in the little war between the two of you?

Of course. But you are one of the few who can see humor in ridiculousness regardless of side.

 

[gnome]

Just throwing in my comment that opinions on courtesy do not imply that one person's judgment supersedes others--it must compete in the "marketplace" of ideas.

Some ideas have resonated well with people, and become the body of knowledge that is sometimes called "common courtesy".

 

[RemieV]

Of course. But you are one of the few who can see humor in ridiculousness regardless of side.

I rarely take sides. I find it to be uncomfortably immovable.

Still, this is the essence of what happened:

RW: Guys, don't do that.

Phil, PZ: OMG WE MEN ARE SUCH MISOGYNISTS.

Dawkins: PZ, are you being serious? THAT'S what you think misogyny is? It's just bad manners! HERE is a real example.

RW, PZ, Phil, and a decent portion of the blogosphere: OMG, DAWKINS JUST SAID THAT MISOGYNY ONLY COUNTS IF IT'S EXTREME! WHAT ABOUT RAPE VICTIMS?!

Dawkins: ???

***

Seriously, anything outside of that isn't actually what happened. Dawkins responded not to Rebecca, but to PZ.

As for whether or not a guy hitting on a woman in an elevator is sexist - I don't think so. Even saying you're tired and going to bed doesn't count because there are situations wherein you would alter that course if the opportunity was great enough. It's not a question of dominance in that regard.

In fact, I think the only time that would irritate me is if it was someone I wanted to say no to. If it was James Randi, for instance, I'm in.

This assumes, of course, that 'coffee' is not a euphemism.

There. Full circle, and I've discussed it to death.

To me, sexism and misogyny and date rape and a dude who sticks tongues down people's throats without permission simply don't enter into the discussion of this particular event.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Re: 347, I've been avoiding that not because I don't have an opinion but because this discussion is hard enough without worrying about being misquoted.

Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time.

Making the point that apology for sexism within the movement can come from the movement itself and from those that you would trust to be your allies is a valid point. Especially if we are talking about the sort of residual sexism that comes from habit and is infinitely more absent-minded than malicious. It can be subtle and pervasive. Watson's response to mcGraw was not STFU but a rebuttal of points McGraw had raised. She never said "Do not say these things." She said "You are wrong here because.., here because..., etc." That is not silencing a person, that is disagreement. the same thing that all these threads are doing.

Yeah, but we don't compare each other to rapists do we? Hmm, lets get past this . . .

I've also spent quite a lot of energy defending the DBAD from the "don't" side. The reaction for those who disagree boils down to this - Being a dick gets people's attention and your message is heard. It is a tool for skeptics to use when being a tool will get the point across. Also, there are times when dickishness is the only possible response.

I agree with Phil (and you) on this, and I think the majority would do well to follow his advice. Nonetheless there is room for well done sarcasm that isn't nice at all, such as some of George Hrab's work, but then I don't think that rises to the level of being a dick. Honest and in your face, but not quite dickish. So, I see a need for some freedom to explore that boundary, but that should not be the core of any serious movement.

Watson was a dick. Straight-up, no apologies. I (personally, just speaking for myself) think that calling out a college student from the podium is unnecessarily harsh and my heart breaks for that girl. Even if she has rebounded nicely, to be in that room at that moment must have been hell. I would not have done it, I would much rather Watson had found a gentler way to make her point.

See, that is what I am getting at. In my mind I would rather be Watson on that elevator than Stef in that audience. I'm not either of them, but I do have empathy for both of these situations. Especially ten minutes later, or even ten seconds later. Watson was annoyed by the approach according to her initial report. I would say Stef was embarrassed several times worse than Watson was annoyed.


So, we are in agreement on several points now.

1. Watson's original video has real merit. You may find it more compelling than I do, but that is a matter of degrees.

2. Watson's response to Stef leveraged the power of her position as a prominent speaker to beat down someone who disagreed with her in a very rude way. I think this borders on unforgivable if she wants to be taken seriously as either a feminist or a skeptic, you find it dickish. Again, a matter of degrees.

3. Dawkins was rude in his vapid post. I think he was being rude to PZ and others, you take it as being rude to feminist. That may be a more significant divide, but I can certainly see your point of view and I don't feel a need to defend Dawkins.

But if there are no limitations to Do Be A Dick, it is hypocritical to blame Watson for using this tactic.

Yeah, I see limits on being a dick, so I don't see my position as hypocritical. You'll have to pin that on others.

BTW, thank you for this post. Reading through this you seemed to be talking past the people who were focusing on Watson's behavior as you were focusing on EG's behavior. I think if we are going to make movement on these issues we have to look at all the pieces. I respect you as a person from previous threads and I really did want to clarify your position on some of these things. I know I will have disagreements with people I respect, but still, I'd rather not!