• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

How can Dawkins redeem himself?

blauregen said:
Who the 'bad guy' is didn't interest me that much.
Click to expand...

Well, this thread is about Dawkins redeeming himself, which would make him the bad guy. But all this is about the bad guy - whether or not people are behaving in ways they should be apologizing for, and whether or not these behaviors should be stopped.

If sexual objectification of women were a general problem in the skeptics/atheist community (Paula Kirby made a good case why this might not be the main problem), looking for a single bad guy to blame wouldn't seem productive. If Rebecca Watson were a bad guy, for some reason, I don't see how it would diminish her complaint.
Click to expand...

Not a single bad guy, but certainly it would necessarily involve the behavior of many guys.

Rebecca's complaint may be legitimate. But realistically none of what she did, starting with her initial video about Elevator Guy, addresses her complaint.

I just find it fascinating how much of the discussion focused on RW's character and recriminations about her improperly speaking for all women or about her being hypocritical, when I can't see how the general message 'There is unpleasant sexualization which could drive away many women.' is diminished by the messenger's alleged flaws.
Click to expand...

The discussion of the flaws wasn't to diminish her message. It was pointing out that her efforts to sexualize herself and other chicks who attended skeptical events were successful. And that giving form to her message with the use of fallacious reasoning, lies, and hypocrisy, isn't exactly the best way to engender progress.

Or on proofing that this specific incident was minimally harmful and on reframing the specific event as different than it was perceived and reported, when it seemed obvious to me, that this was likely only meant as an example.

Aside from the non-example, I agree. I am not sure whether another example would have been better. I suspect any single incident short of violent assault and rape (which didn't happen and was very likely never intended by anyone involved) could have been deconstructed in this way.
Click to expand...

I think actual examples of sexism (Jennifer Oulette gave several good examples) or objectification wouldn't have been deconstructed in this way. Her example was deconstructed because it doesn't seem to be an example of either, which makes it entirely confusing to those whose behavior you are hoping to change.

Linda
 
fls said:
Well, this thread is about Dawkins redeeming himself, which would make him the bad guy. But all this is about the bad guy - whether or not people are behaving in ways they should be apologizing for, and whether or not these behaviors should be stopped.
Click to expand...

True. And to the actual topic of the thread: I think there is no necessity of redemption in any way. Dawkins' comments may have been insensitive towards or may have been perceived as insensitive by many, but that's hardly worth that much outrage in my opinion.

Dawkins, or rather the Dawkins Foundation is effectively helpful in enabling women to participate in skeptic events, given that child care during such events is still a problem that would hinder predominantly women in this regard.

fls said:
The discussion of the flaws wasn't to diminish her message. It was pointing out that her efforts to sexualize herself and other chicks who attended skeptical events were successful. And that giving form to her message with the use of fallacious reasoning, lies, and hypocrisy, isn't exactly the best way to engender progress.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying this. I do not completely agree with the hypocrisy-part, but I understand your position better now.

fls said:
I think actual examples of sexism (Jennifer Oulette gave several good examples) or objectification wouldn't have been deconstructed in this way. Her example was deconstructed because it doesn't seem to be an example of either, which makes it entirely confusing to those whose behavior you are hoping to change.

Linda
Click to expand...

Yes, and no. I was very impressed by Jennifer Ouellette's article and would recommend it to anyone who is interrested in this topic, but given how many commenters on various blogs echoed RW's sentiment and seemed to have no significant problems to relate to it, I think it carried the intended message well enough.
 
blauregen said:
But of course. I was merely curious about whether you, as a possible parent, would see a necessity to caution a daughter more than a son against being alone in situations with a male stranger, where there is a heightened danger of assault.
Click to expand...
But of course it is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is no more directly related to elevators, than your ( likely humorous ) question why we shouldn't eliminate social contact altogether.
Click to expand...
No, actually my question was directly related. It simply follows that if we are to eliminate every perceived threat then why should we not eliminate every real threat? Please to answer the question without being flippant? There IS data on date rape. There is no data, AFAIK, for elevators being a vector for rape (hence real vs perceived), got it?

So, put down the smilies, take a deep breath, my questions are serious so please answer them so.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
No, that's not totally fair. RW labeled EG's actions as sexist objectification of her. The elevator-is-dangerous discussion grew out of RW saying it was 4am alone in an elevator in a foreign country and she felt uncomfortable because of it. It wasn't really RW's claim.

However, Dawkins still has nothing to apologize for.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your position on this, but I do think she was comparing the two - the use of that screenshot of the threatening email is why I feel this way.

Is it sexist objectification if a woman asks a man for a nightcap, or any other type of social interaction? I don't think it is, which is why RW is taking flak for her position that she was being objectified in a sexist manner.

Attempts to get acquainted with someone on a more personal level don't have to be labelled as objectification. We simply feel attractions and are generally social creatures. It seems to me that RW over-reacted to an innocuous invitation.
 
There's nothing to get skeptics talkative like a good debacle about absolutely nothing.
 
RhodyDave said:
I appreciate your position on this, but I do think she was comparing the two - the use of that screenshot of the threatening email is why I feel this way.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, that. It bothered me in particular that RW was conflating her hate mail with skeptics. Most of the hate mail comes from the people annoyed that skeptics were threatening the hate mailer's beliefs.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Oh yeah, that. It bothered me in particular that RW was conflating her hate mail with skeptics. Most of the hate mail comes from the people annoyed that skeptics were threatening the hate mailer's beliefs.
Click to expand...
Thank you. And many of the skeptics are people who care deeply for feminist causes and the rights of women. Most of those I would posit are offended by rape and and domestic abuse. RW can't see her detractors as anything but belonging to a single group that simply doesn't get it. That's what really bothers me about all of this. Decidedly uncritical and antithetical to skepticism.
 
Perhaps a little less railing on Rebecca Watson would be more prudent though?
 
Jekyll's Guest said:
It's not like she said something and people won't let it go. She has a video blog, and she keeps opening her mouth.
Click to expand...
AFAIK Dawkins has moved on. If I had any pull with RW I'd tell her to simply state that while she disagrees with many of the various opinions out there she understands that reasonable people can disagree and that what she wants most of all is to move beyond this.

The problem is that would require a bit of humility.
 
blauregen said:
Yes, and no. I was very impressed by Jennifer Ouellette's article and would recommend it to anyone who is interrested in this topic, but given how many commenters on various blogs echoed RW's sentiment and seemed to have no significant problems to relate to it, I think it carried the intended message well enough.
Click to expand...

I don't think looking at the echo-chamber tells you how well the message was taken up by those for which it was intended.

Linda

(And by "those for which it was intended", I mean those men and women who exhibit sexist behavior. This may not have been Rebecca's intended audience.)
 
RandFan said:
There IS data on date rape. There is no data, AFAIK, for elevators being a vector for rape (hence real vs perceived), got it?
Click to expand...

On rationalskepticism.org, someone did some research and was only able to find between 2 and 4 cases over the past 30 years in the United States, depending on how you want to consider whether they qualified as "elevator rape." None were remotely similar to what Watson described.
 
epepke said:
On rationalskepticism.org, someone did some research and was only able to find between 2 and 4 cases over the past 30 years in the United States, depending on how you want to consider whether they qualified as "elevator rape." None were remotely similar to what Watson described.
Click to expand...
Less people are raped on elevators than people who die on planes. And I thought those things were safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom