Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins

Commentary on and links to religion or atheism in the media
Beebub
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins

Post by Beebub » Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:35 am

Sigmund wrote:Beebub, Rebecca Watson has claimed that she told everyone in her group at the bar that she didn't want to be approached by men trying to pick her up.
Hi Sigmund. Can you point out to me where she said this?

Thanks.
Sigmund
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:04 am

Re: Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins

Post by Sigmund » Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:16 pm

@Beebub:
Her first video on the subject is rather clear on that point. She addresses EG and says "don’t invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner."
That remark only makes sense if the meaning is that he was present to hear her say those remarks. Since she didn't make those remarks in the conference talk itself (the only other place she could be referring to) then the logical conclusion is that she is talking about the conversation with the group in the bar and is assuming that EG heard the relevant point.
She expands on this point in her interview with Chris Mooney on the Point of Inquiry podcast where she says she thought people would learn a lesson from her video and say: "Oh, we shouldn't proposition women, at 4 AM in the morning, in an elevator, after they've spoken all day about please don't proposition me".
That is the reason I've been interested in getting some feedback from someone who was in the bar group.
Did she actually state "please don't proposition me" to the bar group?
Beebub
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins

Post by Beebub » Wed Aug 10, 2011 2:40 pm

I have to disagree with your interpretation of what she said in the video.

You can see it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKHwduG1Frk

I don't think she is suggesting that she was having a discussion about how she doesn't like men sexualising her in that manner at the bar at 4am.

She introduces EG by saying:
...all except one man who didn't grasp what I was saying on the panel
So she's clearly referring to her panel disscussion where she made absolutely no reference to being hit on. The very serious issues she discussed in her panel discussion are outlined above and it did not include getting hit on.

She then says that it was
right after I'd finished talking about how it creeps me out and makes me feel uncomfortable when men sexualise me in that manner
and finishes that part of the video by saying
everybody seemed to really get it. Thank you for getting it
If she was referring to a small coversation in the bar at 4am, why would she say everybody else got it? Was Everybody else in the bar with her at 4am?

Coupled with your quote
after they've spoken all day about please don't proposition me
I can't see how it's referring to some conversation she was having in the bar. I think it's quite clear in all instances she's referring to her talk of that day.
Sigmund
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:04 am

Re: Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins

Post by Sigmund » Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:09 pm

I guess we can both agree that there is no evidence available yet that demonstrates her telling the accused (or anyone) that she didn't want to be approached in that way.
I don't think it is unreasonable to take the following quote to mean she'd just told it to the group at the bar:
"don’t invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner."
but I agree, its not clear and maybe it's to her advantage to keep it unclear.
Most of the detailed descriptions of the encounter have come from people like Greg Laden, PZ Myers and Jennifer Ouellette, not Watson herself (the only one, apart from the notorious elevator guy, who could know).
There is a bloggingheads talk between herself and Ann Althouse that I haven't listened to yet - I think its linked to here
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/07/re ... -time.html
That might have some additional information.
Beebub
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins

Post by Beebub » Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:37 pm

Yeah...

I've had quite enough of Watson's ramblings to sit through 70 more minutes of it thanks. Given that you're in an investigative mood, why don't you listen to her and report back if anything new crops up.
bipedalhumanoid
Posts: 2675
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm

Re: Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins

Post by bipedalhumanoid » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:29 pm

This:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/07/re ... -time.html

is exactly what I was thinking when I saw Watson's response to the Althouse interview. She seemed abslutely fine with Althouse during the interview and then made a nasty blogpost about her later. Deja vu?

I'd hate to see her reaction to being interviewed by a professional radio presenter playing devil's advocate for the purpose of balance. But I'm sure PZ would be there fighting her battles for her if she did.
"The fact of your own existence is the most astonishing fact you will ever have to face. Don’t you ever get used to it." - Richard Dawkins... being shrill and offensive again I suppose.
aiseiri47
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:25 pm

Re: Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins

Post by aiseiri47 » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:41 pm

Clearly RW is a Creationist-Spy. She stirred up a feminist issue, laying tracks that she would later contradict, but was clever enough to not say anything that was truly "feminist-nazi", knowing that some people would jump to that anyway, and that others would still have her back that she was just making a small, fair point. Then the whole atheist world blew up and talked about nothing else for days. Now, weeks later, here we are still arguing about it, whilst clearly giving less attention to other subjects that we more or less agree on (or at least only have small, civil differences of opinion). So, the creationists have won. Constant bickering among the atheists over something that isn't really a sceptic issue at all (not that I don't think sexism is an issue in the sceptic community at all; it's just an issue everywhere) when we could be dancing happily in green fields discussing evolution and how evil the Vatican are. (I'm kind of surprised there hasn't been a thread over the London riots, unless I've missed it).

I think we should just agree to try and see one another as human beings, try to make sure people have an exit strategy before propositioning them, and chat about something else over a tall glass of "get over it."
Sigmund
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:04 am

Re: Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins

Post by Sigmund » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:44 pm

OK, I've listened to enough of that blogginheads interview (it was painful!)
She mentions that he was part of a group who listened to her for 10 hours (!) at the bar in an earlier part of the interview and then speaks about him specifically at this point.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/37611?in=46:10
So, I think the answer is that she does explicitly state she expressed her wishes to him (and others in the bar group) not to make a pass at her.
Feardorcha
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins

Post by Feardorcha » Wed Aug 10, 2011 6:06 pm

I think the answer is that she does explicitly state she expressed her wishes to him (and others in the bar group) not to make a pass at her.
I do this all the time, whenever I meet people. It's quite a simple matter really. Something along the lines of "Okay folks before we begin. I know some of you are already undressing me with your eyes and I can understand that, what with my rugged good looks etc, but I don't want any of you, particularly you younger women, inviting me for sex or coffee or anything inappropriate..."
I'm thinking of getting laminated cards made up to pass around at Atheist in the Pub gatherings.
Beebub
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins

Post by Beebub » Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:18 am

Jebus, but she's an awful bore. For the want of 'unliking' her facebook page, I still 'like' her page and still get her updates. She's on again today complaining that people keep bringing up 'elevatorgate'. Not once, but twice on the same day. Nice way to try to stop the story from going on and on and on and on and on....
Post Reply