Why Dawkins Shouldn't Apologize

[RemieV]

Well, I've got this posted in at least one thread. May as well bring the concept on over here, too.

Dawkins wasn't saying anything against Rebecca. His post was annoyance at PZ. Again, the breakdown:

RW: Guys, don't do that.

PZ, Phil: OMG, WE'RE AWFUL MISOGYNISTS! LOOK AT THIS HORRIBLE EXAMPLE OF US MEN BEING TERRIBLE SEXISTS!

Dawkins: PZ, are you being serious right now? A social interaction isn't misogyny. HERE'S an overblown example of misogyny since it seems like you've forgotten the definition.

Blogosphere: OMG, DAWKINS SAYS THAT IT DOESN'T COUNT AS MISOGYNY UNLESS YOUR GENITALS ARE MUTILATED! WHAT ABOUT RAPE VICTIMS?!

Dawkins: ???

 

[DC]

Why Dawkins Shouldn't Apologize ?

because he is a man and its the woman that has to Apologize. every man knows that.
really

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Why Dawkins Shouldn't Apologize ?

because he is a man and its the woman that has to Apologize. every man knows that.
really

How ridiculous.

As a member of the frail sex she is of course excused from having to apologize. Between her smaller brain and reliance on emotion over logic she is as much a victim as he is.

Anyhow, must dash.

 

[DC]

How ridiculous.

As a member of the frail sex she is of course excused from having to apologize. Between her smaller brain and reliance on emotion over logic she is as much a victim as he is.

Anyhow, must dash.

View attachment 22968

good point, i do sometimes lack the apropriate compassion for those poor beings.

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

How ridiculous.

As a member of the frail sex she is of course excused from having to apologize. Between her smaller brain and reliance on emotion over logic she is as much a victim as he is.

Anyhow, must dash.

View attachment 22968

Second best comment on the whole affair (the one about the skepchick claender still number 1)

Classic - I salute you sir

 

[Chris L]

EG politely hit on RW. What was his crime? RW didn't like it. That's her prerogative. But the idea EG should have known better is disputed by many people who don't think his actions were all that bad. RW claiming EG surely should have known better and his actions were sexist objectification is a stretch.

I guess my point is that we weren't there. While everyone was polite at that moment, that doesn't mean it was inevitable that it turned out that way. If she had been a little drunker, or EG had been a bit more desperate, things might have been different. I can see that from her perspective, the situation might seem less harmless than it does to us.

 

[IllegalArgument]

Well, I've got this posted in at least one thread. May as well bring the concept on over here, too.

Dawkins wasn't saying anything against Rebecca. His post was annoyance at PZ. Again, the breakdown:

RW: Guys, don't do that.

PZ, Phil: OMG, WE'RE AWFUL MISOGYNISTS! LOOK AT THIS HORRIBLE EXAMPLE OF US MEN BEING TERRIBLE SEXISTS!

Dawkins: PZ, are you being serious right now? A social interaction isn't misogyny. HERE'S an overblown example of misogyny since it seems like you've forgotten the definition.

Blogosphere: OMG, DAWKINS SAYS THAT IT DOESN'T COUNT AS MISOGYNY UNLESS YOUR GENITALS ARE MUTILATED! WHAT ABOUT RAPE VICTIMS?!

Dawkins: ???

Thanks for that brief summary! Spares me reading 30 pages.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Thanks for that brief summary! Spares me reading 30 pages.

You really should send her flowers or something. Those were some of the most tedious pages of strawmen and postulating that you ever could have avoided.

Also, SG's summary adds in the Stef angle as well. Both are good for cutting to the chase.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I guess my point is that we weren't there. While everyone was polite at that moment, that doesn't mean it was inevitable that it turned out that way. If she had been a little drunker, or EG had been a bit more desperate, things might have been different. I can see that from her perspective, the situation might seem less harmless than it does to us.

While we weren't there, RW has had ample opportunity to make her case, as well she should be skilled enough in critical thinking to know how to make an evidence based case.

Her case, as made by her, is based on claims that EG must have heard her and must of known what she thought about being approached, and, RW has said she believes with a high degree of certainty that EG wanted sex and nothing else.

The evidence does not support RW's conclusions unless she read EG's mind.

This is not to discount RW's ability to state that she was creeped out. There is room there for an emotional response one need not justify with evidence. RW then went from saying she was creeped out to saying EG's actions were sexist objectification, (RW's words). She failed to support this conclusion despite multiple opportunities to do so.

 

[dirtywick]

RT, you know I love you.

But since when is it...okay, acceptable, good logic, etc. to tell someone they don't have a complaint because other people have it worse?

Someone's always got it worse. And someone's always got it better. Now, mind you, here I'm saying this in general. Not this specific incident, though that's where this arose for us to even be commenting on it. But just in general, what kind of logic is that? "Don't be upset about Z, because other people are dealing with Z¹⁰."

Yeah, well, with any luck, those people will someday be where we are now, but that won't mean there's not still work to do, or that all complaints have become invalid because...someone else has it worse now.

Agree he needn't apologize. It won't help and sincerity is a question.

I don't believe that was his point. To me it appeared that he used the analogy to highlight his belief was her complaint was petty nonsense as opposed to saying that other people have it worse.

Anyway, there's validity to both sides of the argument. It's incredibly disappointing that these popular icons of the skeptical community would demand apologies and promote boycotts for disagreeing. If that's going to be the case, they're not worth following.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I guess my point is that we weren't there. While everyone was polite at that moment, that doesn't mean it was inevitable that it turned out that way. If she had been a little drunker, or EG had been a bit more desperate, things might have been different. I can see that from her perspective, the situation might seem less harmless than it does to us.

...but it didn't turn out differently. (ETA: And there's been little evidence to show that there was substantial reason to believe that it would have turned out differently. The only "evidence" is assumptions based on time of day and location - neither of which are truly evidence that something else could have happened. No more than me walking into Walmart at 3am is evidence that I plan to steal something.)

RD had the right to use an analogy to explain how what RW is claiming is misogny wasn't really misogny. Perhaps a poor analogy (I don't really think it was that poor), but having his words misinterpreted (purposefully?) by those who were out to defend RW and are acclaimed skeptics is hardly RD's fault.

If I were RD, my apology would go something like this:

"Well, this sure was a storm in a teacup. I wish to offer my sincerest apologies that my words were misconstrued. I do so hope the skeptical community can grow from this experience and learn that even their leaders are not always the most skeptical persons."