Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins

Commentary on and links to religion or atheism in the media
Post Reply
malvolio
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins

Post by malvolio » Sun Jul 10, 2011 4:17 pm

Hi bipedalhumanoid
some instant thoughts...
Stef McGraw Rebuts RW
Disagreeing is not rebutting. You can't rebut someone else's experience.
By your reasoning, Dawkins is part of the fallout.
Yes. It all looks like fallout, rather than any attempt from McGraw onwards to understand what Rebecca was feeling and saying.
She did not say anything in her talk that could be interpreted as "don't hit on me" or "don't approach me in a confined space" or anything of that nature. Her examples of misogyny in the atheist community were emails, the worst of which came from men threatening to rape her. Nothing of the nature of elevator etiquite or how women in general should be approached by men.
So it's OK if it's not emails? I would have thought that intelligent humans could understand and extrapolate that intrusive and unpleasant approaches via any medium are unwelcome from any quarter.
a community where we can normally debate anything, has descended to a point where any opposing view can be shut out by labelling it "misogynistic" or by saying "you don't get it" or "thanks for mansplaining that to me".
That was my point about all "communities": physics, music, education, journalism, psychology, kayaking, etc, etc... If empathy fails at the first fence, people's deep unconscious feelings are exposed and so sensitive that these divides ALWAYS erupt.
What she is doing is presenting women as feeble, weak and precious creatures that need special protections. Dawkins treated her like he'd treat anyone else he disagrees with. PZ treated her like a feeble creature who needs a big strong man to protect her.
No, what she was doing initially is suggesting that someone might learn something from listening to her experience, that women have to put up with this stuff all the time and if they dare to suggest that the (usually) men in question could learn something about another person's experience they are called "feeble, weak and precious creatures that need special protections... who needs a big strong man to protect her." You have made my point for me.

It might help if some of the men offended by her initial video go back to the start and try to imagine what it might feel like to live with the need to be alert to attacks in this way, and to ask, nicely, for it to stop, and to get trashed for it.

As I mentioned earlier, requiring Rebecca to be a saint and explain all of this patiently without retaliating against attacks indicates a wish for her to be a saintly figure - this, I believe, is where the madonna/whore stereotype comes from, along the lines of: "if you do as I tell you you're a saint, a perfect mother, but if you even once suggest that my reading of your feelings is ever so slightly off, you'll break the precious pure image I have created for you, be sullied, and I'll have to think of you as bad, then I'll hate you."

Thanks for the opportunity to think more about this - it's good exercise for the mind!
bipedalhumanoid
Posts: 2675
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm

Re: Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins

Post by bipedalhumanoid » Sun Jul 10, 2011 4:38 pm

malvolio wrote:Hi bipedalhumanoid
some instant thoughts...
Stef McGraw Rebuts RW
Disagreeing is not rebutting. You can't rebut someone else's experience.
Try watching McGraw's video. She rebutted the idea that Men shouldn't approach women in elevators as some kind of objective feminist no no. It wasn't a disagreement, it was a rebuttal. A rebuttal that this is a feminist issue and that the man's behaviour is up there with what she equted it to, ie. people threatening her with rape in emails.
malvolio wrote:
By your reasoning, Dawkins is part of the fallout.
Yes. It all looks like fallout, rather than any attempt from McGraw onwards to understand what Rebecca was feeling and saying.
It doesn't take much to understand what it feels like to feel the way she did. The constant suggestion that people don't understand is a red herring... especially considering there are men and women on both sides.
malvolio wrote:
She did not say anything in her talk that could be interpreted as "don't hit on me" or "don't approach me in a confined space" or anything of that nature. Her examples of misogyny in the atheist community were emails, the worst of which came from men threatening to rape her. Nothing of the nature of elevator etiquite or how women in general should be approached by men.
So it's OK if it's not emails? I would have thought that intelligent humans could understand and extrapolate that intrusive and unpleasant approaches via any medium are unwelcome from any quarter.
And here's the part where you exit from reasoned debate. This is a Strawman argument and in the interest of civility I'd invite you to withdraw it.

I didn't say it was ok to threaten a woman with Rape if the medium used is not an email. RW did not complain that people asked her to their room for coffee via email.
malvolio wrote:No, what she was doing initially is suggesting that someone might learn something from listening to her experience, that women have to put up with this stuff all the time and if they dare to suggest that the (usually) men in question could learn something about another person's experience they are called "feeble, weak and precious creatures that need special protections... who needs a big strong man to protect her." You have made my point for me.
Had she relayed her experienced, stated how it made her feel and left it at that, then you'd be corect. Unfortunately, she attempted to use it as evidence for misogyny in the atheist community and equted it to what she discussed in her talk.
malvolio wrote: It might help if some of the men offended by her initial video go back to the start and try to imagine what it might feel like to live with the need to be alert to attacks in this way, and to ask, nicely, for it to stop, and to get trashed for it.
Just the men? What about all the women who also disagree with her?
"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.
malvolio
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins

Post by malvolio » Sun Jul 10, 2011 5:18 pm

Hi again, thanks for responding.
Try watching McGraw's video. She rebutted the idea that Men shouldn't approach women in elevators as some kind of objective feminist no no. It wasn't a disagreement, it was a rebuttal. A rebuttal that this is a feminist issue and that the man's behaviour is up there with what she equted it to, ie. people threatening her with rape in emails.
I don't think McGraw rebutted anything. Whatever category of issue 'it' is, telling someone their experience is wrong or invalid isn't a rebuttal. McGraw doesn't think this issue matters; clearly Rebecca does. I do too. We disagree.
And here's the part where you exit from reasoned debate. This is a Strawman argument and in the interest of civility I'd invite you to withdraw it.

I didn't say it was ok to threaten a woman with Rape if the medium used is not an email. RW did not complain that people asked her to their room for coffee via email.
I haven't exited from reasoned debate, nor have I said what you impute.

What I was trying to say - forgive me not being able to make my argument hermetically clear - was that Rebecca seemed to have been talking about getting unrequited approaches (all the way up to threats) when trying to conduct her normal business (including intellectual debate but, presumably, not excluding getting in an elevator to go to her room). She seems to have imagined that the man concerned would have the ability to extrapolate from extreme cases presented in conference to a relatively minor one at 4am.

The straw seems to be in disputing emails vs conversation - it really is irrelevant, I think, but perhaps you don't. Getting bogged down in squabbles over medium used seems to me a distraction from the meaning being communicated. The point is, I believe, about empathy. But the heat coming off your post suggests we're in danger of making this forum unworkable, like all the others, which would be a shame.
she attempted to use it as evidence for misogyny in the atheist community and equted it to what she discussed in her talk.
It seems to me to fall into the same ballpark - as I said in an earlier post: there's a continuum, from Rebecca's experience all the way through to Dawkins' examples.
Just the men? What about all the women who also disagree with her?
You're quite right! Thanks for picking that up.

And thanks for the debate. I'll follow, but probably won't post any more as I think I've said all I want to say. I've entered into debates remarkably similar to this many times in 50+ years and don't enjoy the ad feminam attacks that always seem to boil up and take over.

Best wishes with the atheist campaign!
bipedalhumanoid
Posts: 2675
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm

Re: Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins

Post by bipedalhumanoid » Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:49 pm

malvolio wrote:Hi again, thanks for responding.
Try watching McGraw's video. She rebutted the idea that Men shouldn't approach women in elevators as some kind of objective feminist no no. It wasn't a disagreement, it was a rebuttal. A rebuttal that this is a feminist issue and that the man's behaviour is up there with what she equted it to, ie. people threatening her with rape in emails.
I don't think McGraw rebutted anything. Whatever category of issue 'it' is, telling someone their experience is wrong or invalid isn't a rebuttal. McGraw doesn't think this issue matters; clearly Rebecca does. I do too. We disagree.
Except she didn't tell anyone their experience was wrong.
malvolio wrote:
The straw seems to be in disputing emails vs conversation - it really is irrelevant, I think, but perhaps you don't. Getting bogged down in squabbles over medium used seems to me a distraction from the meaning being communicated. The point is, I believe, about empathy. But the heat coming off your post suggests we're in danger of making this forum unworkable, like all the others, which would be a shame.
That's where your strawman lies. The argument I made had absolutely nothing to do with the medium and yet you choose to rebut it as if it did. Where we seem to disagree is in that I consider asking a woman for coffee in my hotel room a completely different situation to telling her I want to rape her. Nothing to do with medium.
"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.
mkaobrih
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1601
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins

Post by mkaobrih » Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:39 pm

malvolio wrote: And thanks for the debate. I'll follow, but probably won't post any more as I think I've said all I want to say. I've entered into debates remarkably similar to this many times in 50+ years and don't enjoy the ad feminam attacks that always seem to boil up and take over.

Best wishes with the atheist campaign!
I hope you wont stop posting here malvolio your very welcome.
The church complains of persecution when it's not allowed to persecute.
Tulip1
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: Sligo

Re: Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins

Post by Tulip1 » Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:17 am

mkaobrih wrote:
malvolio wrote: And thanks for the debate. I'll follow, but probably won't post any more as I think I've said all I want to say. I've entered into debates remarkably similar to this many times in 50+ years and don't enjoy the ad feminam attacks that always seem to boil up and take over.

Best wishes with the atheist campaign!
I hope you wont stop posting here malvolio your very welcome.
+1 It was a joy reading your posts even when I did not agree with all of it.
Pope says atheists pick & choose their morals. Correct. Today I will be frowning on child abuse & not having a problem with homosexuality.
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 » Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:36 am

bipedalhumanoid wrote:That's where your strawman lies. The argument I made had absolutely nothing to do with the medium and yet you choose to rebut it as if it did. Where we seem to disagree is in that I consider asking a woman for coffee in my hotel room a completely different situation to telling her I want to rape her. Nothing to do with medium.
Yep. I'm with bip on this one. I fully accept that he shouldn't have done it in a lift and the Rebecca was perfectly entitled to publicly state that it made her uncomfortable. The problem lies with her equating what he did to the nasty stuff she mentioned in her talk, particularly given that it was only in the aftermath of criticism that she started to suggest that she had been talking about men making gerenal advances to women at atheist conferences and meetings, when if you look at the video of her speech, she did no such thing. The only topic she discussed which relates in any way to men from the athiest community making advances on her were ones in explicit and graphic sexual detail. Again, what elevator guy did was not comperable.

I'll echo the pity that you don't intend to stick around. It has been an interesting dscussion.

The story made the 'Atticus' column in yesterday's Sunday Times.

I see also that Dawkins has written a children's bok on evolution with illustrations by a Harry Potter artist. Looking forward to that. He's doing a reading in the Albert Hall. Wonder will there be protests??
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 » Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:40 pm

The only good thing about Malvolio's contribution was the name.
bipedalhumanoid
Posts: 2675
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm

Re: Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins

Post by bipedalhumanoid » Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:46 am

"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.
chemicals
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1018
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 5:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins

Post by chemicals » Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:09 am

والقس هو مجنون
Post Reply