There’s nothing skeptical about the Skepchicks’ vicious “campaign”
The Skepchick “Campaign” (see here and here) makes me ill. It’s baseless scapegoating. It’s vindictive and self-serving. It’s bullying. It’s viciousness and nastiness of the highest degree, and it’s a perfect example of groupthink at its worst. They’re acting in the most irrational, childish, and un-skeptical way possible.
And let’s call a spade a spade: it’s nothing less than an attempt at character assassination.
I just can’t grasp how anyone who possesses even an ounce of intellect or empathy or skepticism could support what they’re doing. It’s truly vile.
253 Comments
Post a comment
Yes; ick. I don’t support that. I didn’t support whatever section it was of whatever letter or post of Rebecca’s that I read a couple of days ago that talked of never reading his books again, never recommending him to anyone again, etc etc etc.
Maybe now I’ll get people shouting at me from that direction too. That will be fun.
I think Richard was wrong about this, but not insanely outrageously save the beer and the cats wrong. He’s the one who published Lisa Bauer’s account of her life as a Muslim convert and then apostate. He’s a fan of Maryam Namazie’s. Maryam was also at the Dublin conference…I suspect he may have been chafed by the contrast between what Maryam talked about and what Rebecca talked about. It’s true that there is a vast difference. I think he’s wrong to conclude that therefore what Rebecca talked about doesn’t matter, but I think I get why he felt that way. (Yes “get”; yes “felt” – these things aren’t fully rational. Such is life.)
Yeah. Regardless of one’s take on any of the rest of this, I guess I just hope that most people will agree that their “campaign” just doesn’t make sense, and that it is scapegoating, irrational group-think, and certainly isn’t skeptical.
And once again, Ophelia Benson reminds me that there are still a few rational people left in this discussion. :)
[excitedly] Are there? Who??
well me for one!
Oh right; that part is in your second link. Duh. I hadn’t opened that one yet.
I do agree with some of what Rebecca says there, but not all of it. I haven’t read the comments. I can’t; life is too short.
There are a zillion comments there. Plus, they moderate them pretty intensely, so it’s rather one-sided. I can’t bother spending any more time reading them, either.
That tends to be common in groupthink situations and blogs. They don’t tolerate anyone even mildly disagreeing with, or even having a slighly different view.
They only allow comments that 1000% agree with them.
I’ve spoken to countless of women who’ve told me that Dawkins work has been life-altering to them. Let’s see, what has Rebecca published that’s life changing and admirable? She’s a shameless self-promoter who needs this in order to make a living. What we should all do instead is boycott any conference that gives her a podium again. We don’t want this bully to turn us into a Stef McGraw. Why should my money go into her pocket? She’s brought nothing to the table.
Hear, hear.
We can decry what Rebecca is doing without deriding her or he work, can’t we? If not, you are engaging in the exact act that you claim to abhor her for.
You deserve a hear, hear.
I don’t have too much sympathy for Richard Dawkins. It’s not the first time he has arrogantly and condescending dismissed people on the internet. I think his first comment on Pharyngula was a rude and irrelevant argument and his later posts were lacking in imagination and empathy (amazing really to say that about him). I agree with you though that the whole thing has got uneccesarily nasty and I really don’t know what the Skepchick site thinks it’s trying to achieve.
I don’t have any sympathy for him either. Why? He’s not playing the victim here. He spoke his mind and has taken the feedback. He responded, and took that feedback. He responded again and took that feedback. All without complaint; indeed, he even went so far as to ask people if he’s wrong, where he’s wrong. Moreover, unlike Rebecca Watson, he’s offered to apologize if he’s actually wrong. Note, he has said that if he’s in error he’s a.) willing to admit that he is, and b.) publicly apologize for being wrong.
There’s only one person claiming to be aggrieved in this whole ordeal. Curiously enough, it’s not the only person who was actually victimized: Stef McGraw. Note, Rebecca Watson can’t be bothered to entertain the idea she was wrong, and no apology will be forthcoming on her actual victimization of a person. But it’s what I’d expect given her track record of using any position of power that’s convenient to exact what vengeance she can on people whom she dislikes.
So in your world lip service is an admirable thing?
That depends on what the lips are servicing.
I seriously cannot parse your comment here.
If it’s with respect to the apology, I can only say that the reason he’d apologize is because he’d then realize that he was wrong in the first case. But that’s the most I can make out of your post.
In case anyone would like to see what a creep Justicar is, I invite you to read some of his posts on the three-part thread at Pharyngula.
This guy is not the kind of ally you want.
Oh, screw reading my posts on pharyngula; that ain’t the half of it! I’d go watch my youtube videos, and read my blog; the evidence there is far, far more damning about what a “creep” I am. I’m just creepy enough that one day in the future I might invite someone to coffee at a convenient location of my own choosing!
With allies like me, who needs enemas?! Whatever you do, do NOT, I say again, do NOT be an “ally” of a guy who campaigns for equality, and lambastes people who work to oppose it. It would immoral! Don’t do it – think of the Snorks and do not do it!!!!!eleven!!!!!
Your idea of “campaigning for equality”, as documented, has been to lie constantly on this matter.
Well, I guess I’ve been found out. What with citing to someone saying I’m lying as proof that I’m lying. I’m convinced!
Pointing out the flaws in another’s argument by way of hyperbole isn’t ordinarily considered lying. But let’s go with your story; you are a special little snowflake after all. =^_^=
I think you’ll find that once you leave the echo chamber of Pharyngula, mere repetition of a claim doesn’t improve its truth value, but I wish the best of luck in your endeavor to discredit my satire. Good on you!
I quote:
“Of course, yours is a remarkably dishonest description of the events. This strange man didn’t merely dare speak to a woman, he waited the whole evening to catch her alone in a closed space to proposition her.”
You are a liar. A habitual liar. That was not hyperbole. You lied.
Read this: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118
Re-read what he said on Pharyngula.
You then realize that Dawkins ‘mistake’ was having the same expectations of others he has of himself: Perspective. Dawkins in 2006: I was molested, but other kids have it worse. Dawkins 2011: Really? An elevator request for coffee? Other women have it worse.
I cant see this as anything but complete vindication for Dawkins.
But he doesnt ‘get it’ because he hasnt been sexually assaulted by a man. Wait…
I cant get comfy on a high-horse, though. I didnt know about this post (2006) until 15 minutes ago. Even I feel like an asshole right now.
Yes, I’d forgotten all about that. Great find.
Wow. I never knew. Thank you finding that, Abbie.
Of course, I’m not sure it’s vindication – having been a “victim” himself, they’ll say, he should know what it’s like, and therefore should bandwagon around emotion betraying rationality. Or something.
Its vindication the intent behind his comments at Pharyngula.
It also vindicates him from the accusations from some groups of people that “He doesnt get it because he hasnt been sexually assaulted by a man like we have”. He has.
I know what you’re saying. I’m saying that no matter happens, there’s a contingent of people are just going to keep on keeping on. So, to them, this won’t be any vindication.
I saw that one before. Completely forgot about it. And now I rightfully feel like an idiot. This & right the first letter over at SkepChick (Since when is “muslima” vaguely racist?) made me change my mind about something.
I still think RD’s comments at Pharyngula were wrong.
Outside example:
There was this ‘fiasco’ in retrovirology– XMRV. While the vast majority of the people with a disease associated with XMRV, CFS, are perfectly sane-but-sick individuals, there is a contingent of individuals on the internet that are friggin nuts.
One of the PIs of a lab tried to wade into one of the friggin nuts forums, and he made a mess. Another PI mentioned to me he wanted to try, and I was like “FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, NO!”
Sometimes it is just best to shut up, because *nothing* you say will make things ‘better’, no matter what you say, no matter how you say it.
So I think RD was wrong to comment… but not that his comments were wrong.
Wow… Yeah, that puts a different spin on it altogether, doesn’t it?
That’s terrible, and quite shocking, but in that essay he projects his own experience on the other boys:
“As soon as I could wriggle off his knee, I ran to tell my friends and we had a good laugh, our fellowship enhanced by the shared experience of the same sad pedophile. I do not believe that I, or they, suffered lasting, or even temporary damage from this disagreeable physical abuse of power.”
There’s a big difference between “believe that” and “know that”, though.
However important the difference, the fact is he’s projecting his own experience on the other boys.
It’s great that Dawkins has perspective about things that actually happened to him.
But he’s telling people who live through experiences that he *doesn’t have* how they should feel, as if he actually knows something about it. He doesn’t.
Rebecca never said that Western women have it worse than fundamentalist Muslim women. She said that being objectified was creepy, and she asked people she believed to be her allies to not do it.
Why Dawkins got so damn huffy about it and decided to go Full Metal Straw Man on it is beyond me. Why anyone would claim that what he did is even remotely rational or logical is also something I’m not sure I’ll be able to understand.
Perspective: Y’all are doing it wrong.
Dawkins has never suffered the trauma of someone inviting him somewhere for coffee? In an elevator? Or other small space? Actually being sexually assaulted? He’s never come close to being sexually assaulted as Rebecca Watson wasn’t close to being sexually assaulted?
What is it that happened in that elevator that big old meanie Dawkins has never experienced?
As noted, people have quoted to you [Justicar] what Watson actually said, and you keep acting like it’s unimportant. So I’ll quote it again:
«So, thank you to everyone who was at that conference who engaged in those discussions outside of that panel, you were all fantastic; I loved talking to you guys—all of you except for the one man who didn’t really grasp, I think, what I was saying on the panel? Because, at the bar later that night—actually, at four in the morning—we were at the hotel bar, 4am, I said, you know, “I’ve had enough, guys, I’m exhausted, going to bed,” so I walked to the elevator, and a man got on the elevator with me, and said, “Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more; would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?”
Just a word to the wise here, guys: don’t do that, you know. I don’t really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4am, in a hotel elevator with you, just you, and—don’t invite me back to your hotel room, right after I’ve finished talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.»
Your problem, Justicar, appears to be that you don’t think Watson should be telling people what makes her uncomfortable.
I was in an elevator and this black guy got in, right. And he’s all like, “sixth floor people” and it made me uncomfortable. “Just a word to the wise here, black guys don’t do that, you know.” Hey, I’m not a racist – I’m just telling people that black people make me uncomfortable. Stop trying to oppress my right to tell black people they can’t talk to me on elevators – it makes me uncomfortable when black people ask me to do things for them like I’m a slave or something.
Your problem is that you fail to distinguish between a person and half of the human population. One might even say that could, you know, be sexist what with telling some 3.5(ish) billion people what they are and are not to do because of one guy.
You are suggesting that men generally are victims of oppression like black people generally have been?
You are suggesting that Rebecca is a sexist for asking men not to make sexual advances toward her?
You are suggesting that one woman’s specific request for men not to make sexual advances toward her is like being a racist?
Suggesting she’s sexist? Lord no. I’m saying it. Do keep up.
Explain yourself, then. How is it sexist for a woman to ask men not to make sexual advances toward her?
I completely agree. To actually suggest that we vilify Richard Dawkins and label him a raving misogynist over this one incident is absolutely ridiculous. Dawkins is certainly not the most sensitive person in the world (his comments at PZ Myers’s blog were unfortunately worded, some valid points or not), but I think we can see by his track record of exposing HUMAN rights abuses by religion that he is not the woman-hating monster that they seem to be claiming. And even if he was, should we throw away important books like “The Selfish Gene” and “The God Delusion”? Erase him from the history of the atheist movement?
Perhaps Dawkins does have something to learn from this debacle…so does Watson…so do PZ Myers and all the bloggers/commenters who have weighed in and spewed vitriol at each other for the past week: no problems are ever solved with hyperbole, histronics, and pseudo-martyrdom.
Hi Miranda,
I think it’s right to point out that the first post was maudlin and vindictive. (Though I think this is understandable, given the circumstances.)
Unfortunately, I’m going to have to disagree with you about the second post. Watson’s critique there, it seems to me, was entirely laudable. It seems to me that Dr. Dawkins’s interventions were entirely inappropriate in the context of the conversation at Pharyngula. That’s grounds for a legitimate critique of his behavior.
To my understanding, the upshot of Dr. Dawkins’s comments were, in effect, that nothing bad happened to Watson, because there were no legal or physical threats implied. But Watson was not suggesting anything at that level. She was talking at the level of a social norms, offering fairly mild advice about what’s appropriate in the context. That is what she has concentrated on, and I think it’s commendable.
That, at least, has been my view so far. I may be off base. And there are other aspects of the situation that I have no opinion about (e.g., the McGraw element), and which might color one’s analysis. But for what it’s worth, it seems to me that some measure of critique of Dr. Dawkins is both understandable and commendable.
That’s pretty much where I am. The irritated dismissal was way off base, but at the same time, it’s also way off base to think he was just bringing up women’s rights in other parts of the world for the hell of it. He was right next to Maryam on that “Ban the Pope” rally. He does care about women’s rights. But the dismissal – no good.
What, exactly, do you mean by “But the dismissal – no good”?
Please be specific.
At this point, I’m kind of tired of the rest of this discussion (I’m certainly not saying that it shouldn’t go on here or anywhere else- just that I’m tired of it), but I felt the need to point out that, regardless of our different takes on the rest of the discussion, I hope that most people will see how irrational and scapegoat-y and unskeptical their “campaign” is.
Well, it depends to some extent on your point of view. It’s either exhausting or amusing. The way these things go, they usually end up like the end of a Keystone Kops film.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that if you’re making the claim that the campaign is baseless, then you’re not going to be able to bracket the wider discussion — i.e., whether or not Dr. Dawkins made an intellectual mistake. (You might say it is a disproportionate response, perhaps, but that’s a different thing from saying it is without basis.)
No, I don’t think he made an intellectual mistake.
Ah. Well, we might have to disagree on that. It seems to me that his comments were either dismissive or they were non-sequiturs.
Here is my reasoning. If the conversation is about norms of propriety (e.g., Watson’s comment was), Dr. Dawkins’ decision to bring up legal or physical violations is, on the face of it, irrelevant. His intervention can only be relevant if we think that Dawkins was making a wider point about how inconsequential norms of propriety are. But if that’s the case, then it’s dismissive of norms of propriety.
I wonder how skinny this comment will be.
Very skinny.
Yeah, sorry about the weirdly narrow comment formatting. I’m not sure that there’s anything I can do about it, or I would. It’s annoying
Ha Ha
L
O
L
I guess there might be a setting to turn threaded comments off? It may be called flat comments?
I honestly do not see how it is any of those things. Do you care to expound, or are you just going to make assertions?
Do you actually know what a scapegoat is? Because Dawkins made this drama for himself. It’s not as if there were some great crime that was conveniently foisted off on him. He stepped into a discussion that was not about him in any way, and promptly dismissed the experiences of half the population of the Western world simply because there are other experiences elsewhere that are worse.
And that’s rational how, exactly? Because there’s only so much good possible in the world, so we should save it up for the Big Things? I’d like for you to quantify that for me if, in fact, that is the case. Is it because it’s such a major overbearing request to ask Western men to not objectify women?
Also, since when is questioning *the most well-known leader of the fucking movement itself* NOT a sign of being a skeptic? Don’t you think that blindly following Dawkins just because he is Dawkins smacks of authoritarianism and is the opposite of skepticism?
You seem to be under the impression that you can just say a bunch of bullshit and not back it up.
When the fuck did that start happening?
Fairly mild advice doesn’t ordinarily paint half of the world’s population as needing to take actions because some hypothetical person they might one day meet has an unpredictable level of emotional discomfort. Using her reasoning, a racist would be perfectly entitled to make the same “fairly mild” suggestion that black people should know better than to ask a white person to coffee in an elevator.
She’s a communications major whose job it is to be always on the public’s tongue; these things are what guarantee her paycheck. If she doesn’t know that saying, hey, um, you three and half billion men over there, you need to learn it is not acceptable to speak to this group of three and a half billion people under the following circumstances . . . No, she doesn’t get to declare some right or privilege to be free from being talked to because she has difficulty functioning in society where other people might, you know, commit the crime of taking a declined invitation as resolving the situation. This of course, assumes the event even took place – a proposition for which we have no evidence.
If it did happen, the appropriate response is the one she presumably took: thank you, no – don’t be a dick. Or something.
Now I’m being told that it’s advisable for me to cross the street to spare some special snowflake the indignity of my sharing a sidewalk with her? Because she’s emotional and concerned that I might be a rapist or something? No, I think I’ll pass by the xenophobia and sexism on offer.
Lots of problems, there.
In the first paragraph, you’ve misrepresented the institutional background behind her remarks, leading to a spurious analogy. Rebecca is crucially and explicitly interested in talking about what is appropriate in what kinds of contexts. In the context where the background involves an imbalance in social power between X and Y, you don’t get to just switch the roles of X and Y willy-nilly — unless your explicit intent is to disregard or dismiss a point about context. If so, you’re dismissing the point, not engaging with it. That’s uncooperative.
In the second paragraph, you’ve conflated two things that need to be distinguished: the right to make your preferences heard and understood (which is essential if you believe that human dignity has any value), and the right to have your preferences adhered to come what may (which nobody has or claims). As a result, you have mistaken the force of her remarks. One might as well accuse a teacher of being a drill sergeant.
In your third paragraph, you reconsider the force of her remarks. Unfortunately, this moots the arguments in the previous paragraph. Presumably, because you only want to belittle the idea that a person can offer suggestions as suggestions, advice as advice. I think that is inappropriate.
In your fourth paragraph, you forget what was said in the third, and additionally add accusations of “xenophobia” and “sexism”. The former is unsubstantiated by anything you have said so far; it just dangles there. The latter makes sense only if you resent, or think you are entitled to resent, claims that are grounded in a desire for equity as opposed to strict equality. I would encourage you that this is a moral blunder.
One of us is apparently not in the same conversation as the other.
First: it is not a category error to point out why her proposition must fail. Merely saying that it is doesn’t make it so. In both her situation and the example to which I cite, an actual member of a minority group approaches a member of the majority group. Black approaches white – minority to majority. Male approaches female – minority to majority. Well, unless you aim to suggest that being makes someone inherently less powerful, Or that being a woman makes someone inherently less powerful. Are you?
I have made no conflation whatever. She has every right to say whatever she wants. Where her right stops is in the part where she adds, “don’t do that.” That’s an imperative statement; it aims to place a positive duty on someone to do something. If you’re fine with being told what you may and may not do when you’re hurting no one, you’re welcome to it. I won’t be spoken to in that tone voice.
Further, as I note, some of the more prominent names are going so far as to advise me that I should choose an alternate route to my destination were I to happen a woman walking alone. Thank you, no. I don’t work hard to secure the rights and equality of others so that it will be denied to me. Xenophobia, fear of strangers. If fear isn’t involved, one is hard pressed to see how suggestions of “don’t do that” are anything but ridiculous. Sexist, stereotypical behaviors of a gender being applied to a person of a gender. Prejudice towards a gender. She claims that all men in confined spaces with women present the same situation. There is absolutely no chance I could rape a woman. Therefore, to apply to me that concern is to stereotype me.
I think we’re in the same conversation. We have very different beliefs.
First, we don’t agree about the background. Referring to men as a “minority group” is either trading on an equivocation, or it is just plain false. You might mean to suggest that men are in a demographic minority, and that might be true, but then that has nothing to do with the relevant sense of minority (having to do with power-relations).
If you are seriously suggesting that men are in a historically submissive state, then that is not correct. e.g., while I would argue that matriarchies do exist (contrary to the claims of some anthropologists), they are relatively rare, while patriarchies are more abundant. Or so it seems to me. But I’m having a very hard time reading your claim charitably, so you’ll have to elaborate on what you mean if I’m to make any sense of it.
Notice, that we are currently speaking about the background, not the foreground. By this, I mean that we’re talking about various presuppositions that are involved in the context of speech. Rebecca Watson could be She-Hulk, and so the power-relations would be more like those that you describe, and yet it would not make any difference to the point about the background. That’s because the background (in this case) is about institutions and populations, and our duties that are a reflection of those social facts.
Second, it’s true that she made an imperative statement. But then she made an imperative statement to a population (heterosexual males), not to you, and since she is not Commander In Chief of All Things, that mitigates the force of her statement. You say you “won’t be spoken to in that tone [of] voice” — well, fine. But you are entitled to feel incensed only if you imagine yourself to be the embodiment of All Men. Since you obviously don’t, your reaction is disproportionate.
Third, I won’t comment on the walking-alone stuff, because I don’t see it on this page. It does perhaps makes the “xenophobia” claim intelligible, which is all I asked for, I guess.
You’ve also given some perspective on why you think “sexism” is an appropriate term to use — because evidently you think that people are stereotyping men when they give advice about propriety. And actually, you’re *sort of* right — the behavior of certain men are indeed having an effect on how people legitimately react to men in general.
But it does not follow that men are being stereotyped. For a stereotype involves *belief* in a certain simplified picture of the generalized other, and as a result, is fodder for discrimination. But you can legitimately hold a picture of the generalized other that you don’t actually believe in — rather, you hold onto it by default as a way of venturing into the unknown. Then, if you’re a fair-minded person, you let it be overridden by particular encounters, if people are able to earn your trust.
Thank you Miranda.
Yes, what all these people are doing is vile and disgusting. We all know that little people are often cruel and coward but I would have never imagined to see this confirmed here, in the atheist and skeptik blogosphere.
My guess is that there were hidden (and completely baseless, otherwise they would have surfaced before) resentments against Richard Dawkins (envy, jealousy…) and that this incident has been used to legitimize the hatred. What I find baffling is how this maneuver has been swallowed by so many people.
And thank you again for being brave and speaking out when most people who agree with you just prefer to hide in their ivory towers and let justice, fairness and reason go down the toilet.
meh, it seems less hidden resentments and more that Dawkins serves a useful function as the ultimate “old white guy who doesn’t get it” archetype. apparent evidence to the contrary – his leadership in supporting Ayaan Hirsi Ali in exile, for example – doesn’t particular matter to this point, as it still doesn’t mean Dawkins fits himself within the epistemic community of Skepchik’s standpointish feminism. Which means it’s true that he probably doesn’t get it, but I’m not sure it matters that he doesn’t (hopeful answer: he does get “it”…and just disagrees with the usefulness and accuracy of “it.” which won’t matter much either way)
Hear, hear.
This dispute resolves to a form of tribalised gang warfare.
Rebecca has staked her persona on a “snarky” witted approach, where sexist remarks that emanate from her are to be applauded as amusing, but from those with whom she does not see eye-to-eye as being viciously “sexist”.
This, from a female who’s sole claim to minor fame is: being famous for being a media-whore. Not a scientist, nor a sceptic. But famous for being a snarky media-whore.
Her complaints against Dawkins are as valid as a flea’s complaints against it’s host.
She is NOT a feminist. She continuously parades her female privilege above males on a regular basis. (“I can ‘dis females because I am one, but you can’t because you are a bloke”, or slimier words to that effect.)
ERV has remarked that as a role-model, Rebeccah is very far from ideal.
Consider the reactions to her many marriage proposals. Consider her media-whoring of her accepted marriage proposal.
No. She is fleetingly famous for being fleetingly famous, whereas Richard is famous for having been in the league of Hawking, Maxwell, Lise Meitner etc, for having contributed something very solid to the advancement of the globe.
Thanks, Miranda, you’ve nicely summed up my feelings on the matter. It utterly baffles me how people can claim to be sceptics, then play “follow the leader” without ever ONCE questioning the veracity of what was said.
Er, isn’t not putting people on a pedestal without evidence of them unequivocally deserving it (Sagan, I miss you) sort of a bit of what being a sceptic is all about?
So yeah. ‘Tis nice to see you, ERV and Alison Smith on Skeptoid being a voice of reason!
Thank you for being one of the few rational voices in this whole debacle.It has been been blown way out of proportion and the reaction to Richard Dawkins has been quite nauseating.
Without him, atheism would not have hit the popular culture stream quite as it has now and the whole “rich, white, old guy” argument is childish and unnecessary. He should not have to apologise for his age, race or the fact that he has worked his whole life as a successful academic, and neither should any of us for that matter!
I have heard Rebecca Watson talk and I enjoyed her attitude. I thought she was fresh and interesting but this darker, pettier side just makes me reel. She should have done the good thing and said “Hey guys, I didn’t actually get raped, can we all just chill?” but she didn’t. This whole thing has got into every blog, twitter and any remotely sceptical/atheist forum that I read and it is just too much. There is worse stuff going on in the world and I don’t think Richard Dawkin’s response was that “rude” or even that much off of the mark. No-one was hurt, no-one was raped, no-one was killed. There was an awkward moment of rejection and that is that.
I wonder what “Elevator Guy” thinks about all of this? Does no-one think that he might have taken his chance to talk to Rebecca in the lift because he was too shy or intimidated to do it in a group setting? If he had got her back to his room, would he have made advances or was he genuine? Assuming the worst, especially when nothing happened, is unfair and prejudiced against the male population.
All this has done is turn me off a lot of blogs I used to read, especially Skepchicks and has put me on to folks like you who are actually talking sense and not getting carried away with the peer-pressure-driven circus of it all. I still respect and adore (in a professional sense) Richard Dawkins and I fully support what he said, how he said it and what he clearly meant by it. He is not the asshole people are protraying him to be and they should have more respect for an older individual of the movement who has done so much, has so much more to teach us and should be allowed to be him without having to apologise for it.
There. I’m done!
Yes, completely agree with this post. The shrieking and hysteria that the skeptical/atheist “community” (whichever tribal epithet you prefer) has so speedily fallen into is disturbing, but perhaps not that surprising after all… humans.
ERV´s post above also makes a very good point.
Great! “Shrieking and hysteria” about feminist issues – way to demonstrate that sexism doesn’t exist!
The type sample of gross over-reaction.
Really? A 14 word reply is gross over-reaction?
Yes.
!
It flitted across my mind that someone could complain about the wordage but didn´t think anyone would be so crass.
Good post, Miranda. Have anyone thought of trying a “counter-protest” campaign? :)
Well, I’m working on one of a sort. Not apologies and all that kumbaya stuff. I think Rebecca Watson (or anyone who abuses a position of power and is advocating for discrimination of any variety) should no longer be an invited speaker. She wants to attend? Fine. Pay for it like everyone else, and wait in line to ask a question like everyone else.
This is not her first time (information on my blog) using a position he happens to get (on the grounds of what merit is yet to be explained to me) to take up whatever petty cause against people whom she dislikes. Plus, you know, she’s sexist.
If a portion of the funds received at any event find their way into Rebecca Watson’s pocket, I won’t be spending any money there.
Promise? I’ll start campaigning for her to be invited everywhere!
Best of luck to you then. Be careful what you wish for and all that jazz.
Erm, just how incredibly how juvenile is that response?
I shall leave that to the adult reader to decide.
I do hope there is some kind of lesson drawn from this awful episode. I still retain my enormous respect for Ophelia as well as Richard. But you Miranda, showed enormous bravery for the way you took a stand, and facing the personal abuse in doing so.
The atheist community needs some work. Sexism is a problem that I fully recognize within the community, but it’s a problem that requires objectivity.
Egbert, how exactly does one deal with something like sexism “objectively”?
By throwing sharp and/or heavy objects, I would think.
I think the kind of sexism we’re talking about here, the unconscious privilege white middle-class type, is because of ignorance. Would you not agree? And therefore it needs some consciousness raising. I don’t think we’re talking about the hateful or bigoted type of sexism, the one that involves the enforcement of law.
sort of the crux of the problem – where does “consciousness raising” fit within a skeptical movement? regardless of the veracity of the ideas being raised, it’s not a particularly skeptical or critical pedagogical idea. It fits itself within the templates of revealed truth or being born-again, for the most part. The only way we become conscious of “unconscious privilege white middle-class type[s]” of sexism is if we drop the skeptical standpoint and just run with it, questioning not our concepts but only our various privileges and our awareness of them.
Are you saying sexism does not exist?
I’m talking about the atheist community, and I’m pretty sure sceptics accept knowledge through evidence and reason.
sure it exists, but there’s no grand consensus (nor should there be) within feminism as to what constitutes sexism and if it includes unconscious status and standpoint within broad, socialized power inequalities. This is how the initial situation metastasized – McGraw came out against Watson with a (crude) choice feminist critique and got labeled as anti-woman and written out of feminism for having a legitimate enough argument from another feminist tradition as to what constituted sexism.
Egbert, what exactly do you think Rebecca was doing when she brought the incident up in the first place? She was just giving a concrete example of what not to do, and she asked people to not do it.
Perhaps you should be asking this of Ms Watson?
Sorry, I have to have a geek moment here. Egbert is my favorite non-combat pet in World of Warcraft; he’s got ADHD and I can’t even keep him on his leash!
Once some people have got on their high horse and have got up a good gallop, there is no stopping them. Concepts like subtlety and perspective have been long left behind in the dust.
I can’t see any goodness in the “Campaign”. I’m afraid I can’t help but see it as self-serving.
@scepticalskull I understand where you are coming from, in terms of your respect for Richard Dawkins, but I really don’t think Elevator Guy needs to be defended by anyone (people on other sites have suggested he might be autistic for goodness sake). Rebecca Watson never claimed anything much about the incident before Dawkins came in with his comment and he was significantly responsible for escalating things. I quote:
“Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with. Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her?” etc
How condescending is that and how directly insulting of Rebecca Watson? I don’t agree with what’s going on at the Skepchick site but what sort of response did Dawkins expect?
No, no, no, wrong, it wasn’t Dawkins that escalated it, it was Skepchik and PZ Meyers. Actually, most of the blame here should really fall on PZ, he’s the one that turned into a misogyny issue, and it was in response to PZ’s blog post that Dawkins replied.
Well it’s all a matter of interpretation. Dawkins is obviously very well known and he posted something that a lot of people found pretty contentious. Everybody wondered if it was really him at the time and PZ wasn’t at home so couldn’t confirm this. Truth be told when PZ posted later it obviously cranked things up a little more.
Give me a break. Dawkins made a dumbass comment, and it’s a big thing now because he’s so well known. Had he not said something stupid everyone would’ve moved on.
When I see Rebecca I don’t get a clear-cut vision from her.
Feminists to me have been visionary. They rethought the ideas of patriarchy. And then fought against it. The vision was clear 40 years ago. Women’s liberation movement was for freedom and equality. And they achieved their goals in a revolutionary way. And thanks to these remarkably visionary women today women have the economic and social power that makes our society as democractic as possible and much developed than many other nations.
When I see Rebecca I don’t see a visionary person. However, when I read Richard Dawkins comments which are almost in line with those of Maryam’s I see visionary. Because he’s appreciating the fact that 40 years ago the revolutionaries brought feminism to the forefront. And now he’s wanting feminists to rethink feminism. What are the new challenges women face globally in the 21st century?
And Dawkins beautifully and sarcastically points out the way Muslim women have loss of power, respect, they are denied their equal rights and dignity. Men in these countries won’t even allow them to drive cars. They force women to cover their bodies. And yet Richard is condemend and vilified for that. He’s not telling Rebecca to shut up. He’s asking her to be a visionary, to rethink feminism. But because he’s male his opinion doesn’t count. Oh, please.
Is that wrong? Is it wrong to say that women globally deserve equal protection under the law? That we should reevaluate the threat women face in the global world? Is it wrong to suggest that perhaps Dawkins is wanting a revolutionary call for a vision and to reignite that passion feminists had 40 years ago?
He might not have done it in the best tone.
Instead of making Dawkins an ally they’ve turned him into a misogynist. That’s pretty sad.
Yes indeed. Excellent comment
Seriously?
There have been efforts in Uganda to make homosexuality a capital crime. Therefore, North American gays and lesbians, stop worrying about homophobia on your doorstep! Be VISIONARY, be PASSIONATE! There are GLBT people in oppressive countries who have it far worse than you!
Or maybe, just maybe, it’s possible to be able to look at one’s own lot, have perspective without how much worse it could be, and still try to improve it anyway. That doesn’t diminish what other people in the world go through.
As an atheist, I know I have a better time of it in Canada than I would in Saudi Arabia. Richard Dawkins has a better time of it in the UK than he would in Saudi Arabia. Should he be a true visionary and focus his attention on the plight of atheists in Saudi Arabia? Because if he honestly thinks a feminist shouldn’t be concerned about the patriarchy around her because there are women who have it worse in Saudi Arabia, then he should focus his attention the plight of atheists in Saudi Arabia and not be too concerned about religion in the UK.
All this from an awkward request to go to coffee? :)
Sigh…there will always be some who descend to crackpottery and the internet puts their crakcpottery out for all to see.
This is unfortunate, but Richard Dawkins has endured worse. :)
Remember how they came after Lawrence Krauss? This is supposed to be about skepticism and science. Not personal foibles.
There might be an “accomplishment envy” factor at play by the skepchicks.
Tribalism meets envy.
I’m assuming that most of the tempest with Dawkins’ post would’ve blown over quite quickly if it hadn’t been written in classic Dawkinsese tone – mocking, sarcastic, and biting. Which is a bit hilarious, considering the whole internal debate over tone in argument re: the non-secular world. Guess lots of skeptics don’t like it too much when one of our own (and best) guns is turned i the opposite direction.
I found it particularly ironic when, at one point, PZ Myers called upon people to demonstrate “sensitivity” when it came to this issue. Ha!
Yes, this incident prompted me to remove my PZ Myers feed.
His commenters ceased being worth reading years (decades) ago.
It is now a cess-pit of self-confirming anonymous foul-mouthed harpies.
Yet, I thought his (PZ’s) contributions worth attention.
No longer, matey.
Bye, bye, PZ.
What, with his automatic hatred of those who dare to complain about male gential mutilation, and the “man-splainin’” bullshit, I’ve had enough.
There are superior blogs to peruse, and this seems to be one of them!
PZ’s blog commenters haven’t been worth reading for decades, eh?
You do realize the blog hasn’t fucking been around for decades, right?
Harpies? Nice.
@Vokouun Yes indeed and it was highly ironic when, later in the same thread, Dawkins asked for help in understanding the criticism he was receiving and implied he wouldn’t listen if people swore!
No, Mal Morrison. He asked for people to explain it to him without using “fuck” in every sentence. Not that swearing isn’t acceptable or anything. But try to use some words other than fuck.
Ewww, we hate boys, and we REALLY hate boys who tell us that we shouldn’t hate boys!!!!
Are you the Robert Price who presents the awesome POI podcasts on the Bible’s historicity?
If so, count me as an acolyte!
Oh yes, that Robert Price would make a stupid comment like that.
Sheesh!
Are you publically labelling/libelling me as a fool?
To me, the biggest disconnect is whether EG engaged in sexist behavior. People seem to view the RD incident through that lens.
You can try to label EG as “sexist” until you’re blue in the face. Doesn’t make it true. And RW doesn’t have a right to not be annoyed by a trivial incident.
If Dawkins had written an article (and not simply posted a few comments), I might care more about why he used RW as a foil. He doesn’t agree with her position. He said as much.
And you, Adam, do not have the right to tell someone how comfortable they should be with another person objectifying them.
Let’s get to the underlying issue here. The underlying issue, the reason this has blown up, is because men in predominantly male groups, be they the corporate world, sports, religious groups, hobby groups, whatever, are very self-conscious and wary of accusations of sexism and misogyny.
This is ESPECIALLY TRUE in progressive groups (which I think atheist and skeptic groups tend to be) where many of the men view themselves as feminists and as crusaders in helping to overcome REAL discrimination and abuse of women.
And there has been an undercurrent in atheist/skeptic circles for a while now of women accusing atheist/skeptic organizations of being sexist and male dominated and patriarchal, etc.
From (*I think*) the point of view of Dawkins and many men (myself included) it’s a slap in the face and an insult and just plain exasperating when you’ve been crusading for things like ending gender discrimination, ending religiously inspired abuse of women, for equal pay for equal work, for gay rights, etc., etc., and then to have someone come along and point fingers at a man, men, or at “the men in the community” and call them misogynists for things that are either trivial or in fact not even misogynist at all.
It’s like if you’ve been giving someone help for years, then they turn on you and call you a jerk for no good reason, that pisses you off, and that, I *think* is a good bit of what’s going on here.
And not only that, but this type of stuff has real implications for men as well. I, nor any man that I know, has any desire to trivialize rape or sexist behavior, but men are also very, VERY, sensitive to these accusations, because YOU CAN GO TO JAIL for this type of stuff, or at the very least have your career ended over it, or lose your job, or get divorced, etc.
This is something that men and women may never be able to see eye to eye on, but men who are decent guys and who don’t rape people or abuse women are rightfully scared by the sense that something that they do that is completely innocent will be misinterpreted and they’ll have their lives ruined over it, or they’ll have consensual sex with someone then get accused of rape after the fact and have their lives ruined over it, etc. Again, men and women may never see eye to eye on this; women’s fear is of being raped or abused and worse enduring that and not getting justice, men’s fear is of being falsely accused of rape or abuse and getting “screwed” because of it. And, the simple fact is that the chances of the latter happening grow with each passing day.
And I don’t even want to get into that discussion, but the fact is that those are the fears and the perspectives, and I think that this is what’s underlying much of this discussion, and was probably partly what was underlying Dr. Dawkins’ comments.
Men have a fear of innocent behaviors being interpreted as criminal and men in progressive organizations especially are sensitive to being called misogynist or having claims of misogyny thrown about lightly when they feel as though they’ve been fighting on the side of feminism all along.
And I’ll say this too: (I’m sure I’ll be lambasted for it) Yes, atheist and skeptic organizations are disproportionately male in population, but it’s not because they are populated by misogynists, its because statistically fewer women are interested in or hold those views. This is what get’s me about many claims of sexism, and again I think many men in the atheist/skeptic community are sensitive to this because many are also engineers, programmers & scientists (also “male dominated” fields), which is when women who are not like “most other women” blame men for the fact that other women don’t share their interests.
And this is particularly sad because in many cases they end up blaming the men that they share interests with! In this case atheism/skepticism. There are *some* women in the community who blame the men in the community for the fact that there aren’t more women in the community, but guess what, ITS NOT OUR FAULT! Don’t blame men for the fact that statistically speaking women tend not to share your interests, indeed the result is that when you do this you end up lashing out at the very people with whom you share the most interests.
Sorry for the extended rant, but again, I just think that some of this is what’s underlying the blow up of this issue.
R. G. Price, thank you, very well said. I was going to post something similar but you beat me to it. I consider myself completely supportive of women’s equality. Equality with reciprocity. (Kind of in line with reciprocal altruism–Hmm, who came up with that notion? Could it have been a famous evolutionary biologist a lot of people are attacking right now?) Not the pseudo-equality being demanded: of males having to tiptoe around lest they hurt a female’s feelings. And yes, I can tell you from experience that not toeing the party line about this is extremely costly. Even this conversation has cost me at least one female friend. (I gained a few also, so it’s all good!) The only thing we progressive men can do about it is to speak out more about the legitimate avenues to real gender equality. And show the way as best as we can.
Over the past few days I’ve become increasingly distressed at the inability of our community to discuss an issue rationally and without rancor or name-calling. This “campaign”, which I agree with Miranda is vile and disgusting, seems more like a popularity contest: who has the greatest influence on the internet? It is about trying to bully people into agreement through name calling (“gender traitors”) and humiliation. It is not about rational discourse but about self promotion (“SCORE”) and censorship of ideas that some people don’t like.
The atheist community used to pride itself in holding no cows sacred: all topics were free and open for discussion, and that discussion was supposed to be civil, reasoned, and driven by evidence, not just anecdotes. Arguments were not decided by who could shout the loudest, recruit the most powerful blogger to their side, or humiliate the most famous person.
I would like to think that this community could survive this period unscathed, but I’m not optimistic. This “campaign” represents, to me, the antithesis of how we are supposed to behave.
It only exposes the main weakness of atheism–that it’s not based on reason but on non-belief (defined as not theism). That can’t possibly be a sufficient basis for a social or political movement.
I have suggested that we need some coherent philosophy or methodology or anything that goes beyond the label atheism, but that would mean foregoing the ‘mass movement’ idea of lobbying and social ‘pressure’ for something more intellectual and long term.
Atheism is not non-belief and it is based on reason. It is the logical outcome of the god question. This is completely independent on whether we can make a movement out of it or not.
I think the current drama reflects the emphasis on personalities rather than arguments in the skeptical movement. The atheist movement so far has been more about arguments studied by accomplished, book-writing scholars; not IT professionals or media people.
Like Jerry I have been taken aback by people exploding left and right rather than discussing based on facts and interpretation.
This is completely untrue. There are plenty of atheists who are irrational or even religious. If atheists think they are rational by default, then we have even bigger problems than this drama.
Somite, some people may have reached atheism through reason, but not all. That isn’t a condemnation of course, it is just that there is no “one path” to atheism. Some people are never afflicted with religion. Some are get there as a reaction to institutionalised religion that has abused them.
I think this is why it is very hard to get a coherent philosophy or methodology that Egbert speaks about. In fact it is one of the things that atheist activist groups, who are in the business of lobbying for reforms, find very difficult to put together: unless you couch it in the vaguest of terms, it is hard to collate anything that genuinely can be agreed on by everyone. Get specific, and you lose people.
I am ambivalent about which way is the right way to go, I don’t know what the answer is.
In my opinion it has actually been the toning and second-guessing that holds back atheism. If we concentrated on “the god hypothesis has no evidence and is unnecessary” we could get a lot more accomplished.
Bravo, Jerry! A passionate, but principled call to reason! I too have been feeling the same kind of distress.
I would like to propose, in fact, that the primary error that has been made over and over, endlessly and ad infinitum, has been the tendency for people to ‘mind read’ the supposed intentions of others whom they disagree with, assume that those intentions are nefarious, and then to take their own assumptions as brute facts of the universe.
“Argh! They ‘don’t get it’ because they are obviously and nefariously anti-woman/anti-man/unempathic/etc.! This is a fact because it seems very truthy to ME!”
This is the cause of the entire mess in the first place, and the cause of each level of escalation of insanity. (Or so it seems to me. Argh!)
@Benjamen S. Nelson
I wouldn’t think that it needs a charitable reading since minority and majority fairly well-defined terms. Majority: consisting of more than half a membership. Minority: anything that isn’t the majority.
I am certainly not going to concede to that a man is inherently more powerful than a woman. It depends on the specific man and the specific woman. While there’s a good statistical argument to be made in the abstract, it’s a meaningless pathway once we’re dealing with two actual people whom we can evaluate.
Rebecca Watson has gone out of her way to make sure we know nothing about this alleged man, thus depriving everyone of having information to evaluate anything about him – if he even existed in the first place. Mind, there’s not a shred of evidence to suggest he does, or for that matter anyone else was even in that elevator.
No, I don’t trust Rebecca Watson; having been doing some research on her for the last little while, I see no reason to take anything she says at face value.
Nor am I interested in some postmodernism doubletalk about frames of reference with respect to our beliefs on the epistemic . . . gag me with a fucking bloody tampon please.
Words have definitions. That is not a trivial matter to me. Unless someone goes out of his/her way to make explicit the fact a word is being used in a novel way, I’m going to figure the dictionary controls. If someone is using words in a novel way for which there exists another word for that concept, I’m going to do a lot of smiling and saying, “that’s nice”.
I need presuppose nothing for my analogy to hold. If the chain of reasoning is valid, the chain of reasoning is valid. It doesn’t become less valid simply because different groups are used to explicate a relational feature between two groups where one subject of one predicate has some concern over the potential actions of some subject of the other predicate. But if you want to maintain this artificial rule, I can accommodate you.
White people should not approach black people near any navigable waters because, you know, slave trade and all. Whites shouldn’t drive shitty cars near black churches in the south because, you know, church bombings. Just because someone might have that concern, or even fear, doesn’t impose the slightest burden on the rest of society to defer to it. Your emotional problems are your concern – all growed up type people have no small measure of responsibility for attending their own health – physical, or psychological. I am not persuaded that some random person’s discomfort with what they think I might potential do is a sufficient cause for them to tell me where I may go, when I may go there and with whom I’m allowed to speak once I arrive.
The appropriate response is, “sorry you feel that way – sucks to be you.”
I notice you don’t call her “Rebecca Twatson” here, the way you do on your blog. Why’s that?
The same reason I don’t smoke in other people’s homes: I don’t set the rules at other people’s places. I would presume given the nature of Miranda’s site, it would be discourteous.
That’s not to say I won’t screw up and it Twatson elsewhere, but I do try to make it a point to fit flavor of someone’s site when I post on it.
Bad move on my part?
What could possibly be discourteous about it?
Well, it is a portmanteau of her name and twat. And Miranda doesn’t seem to really have that kind of vibe for her site, so I decided not to use it.
Plus, if you look right below your reply, she seems to think I made the right choice. =P
Yes, please don’t use it on my site. What you use on yours is none of my business, though.
I hadn’t planned on it. I was fairly confident going in taking the, um, bent I’ve selected to address her would not exactly be a keen strategy for making friends and influencing people. Let’s just say I haven’t been disappointed. But, it’s not why I’m here, and anything I can do help get her to not be a “face” or “voice” for people to look up to . . .
Really Miranda? It’s none of your business that he calls a woman Twatson?
Ok this is one place where I entirely disagree with you.
I don’t approve of it, but I control only what is allowed here. He can feel free to post whatever he’d like on his own site, of course.
Ophelia. Just bringing up someone else’s childish name calling into this discussion is probably not productive. Can we stay with our discussion of the facts and not personal foibles?
Yes, because when you use words you know are going to offend and even hurt people, that’s their problem. When I use words that will offend you, then suddenly diction matters.
Yeah, Justcar’s usage is very grating. Makes everyone who maight disagree with RW look bad. Please Justicar, tone it down. You look like a nutcase, sorry.
Let’s just make sure we’re clear here:
a.) a guilt by association fallacy is an argument you think should give me pause to consider any proposition, b.) my roll here is such that someone might consider me the ringleader, and c.) from either a or b above I’m the one who’s having deficient brain functioning. No, I don’t think so. But it’s almost kind of cute that think an openly fallacious argument is actually a cogent reason for anyone to do anything.
Yes, we have a gal who cries “he talked to me when I didn’t want him to!; therefore, all men are required to not talk to people during the following___” who then goes on to present an address as a speaker, a privilege she then exploits to smack down some audience member, but my little portmanteau is too far. Thank you; I’ll keep my own counsel on this.
Well, now you know better — a sociological minority does not necessarily mean a numerical minority. Rather, it means something like “subnormal with respect to a dominant group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth and political power”. Hence, numerical minority is irrelevant to anything that would be relevant to Watson’s claims. That’s what made a charitable reading difficult — you were trading on an equivocation.
I did not say that men are “inherently” anything. I said something quite closer to the idea that men tend to occupy certain abstract power relations. And this most certainly does matter to what is said, because institutional role is critical to context of speech, and meaning is impossible without context. Even if we are talking about two people gabbing, we still get to talk about how their legitimate impressions of the outside world affects the things that those two people say and how they relate to each other. We’d be negligent if we didn’t.
I won’t give you a lecture on speech act theory, since I’m not sure you’re in a mood to absorb it. But very quickly: you allege, incorrectly, that speaking of context is “postmodern”. That is false, since most of what I’ve been saying comes straight out of mainstream analytical philosophy of language; in particular, the field known as pragmatics (which is the science of meaning with respect to use). Yes, words have definitions, but our best cognitive science tells us that definitions have gaps. Rigor demands a higher empirical standard.
If you had a chain of reasoning, I might be able to evaluate it as valid or invalid. But analogical reasoning does not tend to admit of formal validity, which frustrates that effort; and you claim that your reasoning was analogical.
Well, fine. I can say that your initial analogy is spurious. And indeed, I do claim it is spurious, because you do not compare like with like (with respect to sociological minority status). Analogies work best when the source and target analogues share a great many features in common. This is not an artificial expectation — it is the point of making an analogy that you should compare sets that are low on disanalogies. Especially when those disanalogies are the very point of the conversation at hand.
Your newest analogies are more sporting. So, you compare a woman’s injunction against a man propositioning her on an elevator at 4AM, to an injunction against white people approaching black people near any navigable waters because of slave trade. But it seems to me that you cannot compare these very well; they seem to be entirely different when it comes to degrees of credible threat (since slave trade is long gone) and the proportionality of the response relative to the threat (since the inconvenience of changing course is not grounded in any credible threat). Quite a different story when we’re talking about two people in a closed space.
Peoples’ icky feelings are not necessarily a part of this. The issue is, what do you want? Do you want people to trust you, or not? Do you want to build communities, or not? If you don’t want to be trusted, then you can persist in the ‘bloody tampon’ rhetoric. Sure enough, people will (hopefully) leave you alone, so long as you don’t pose them legal threat or physical harm. But if you do want to be part of a common community, then you have to be prepared to grant people dignity — that is, the sense that their grievances and self-image are seriously considered as being worth a non-zero amount. Or, in other words: you have to stop yourself from treating people like dogshit.
That doesn’t mean, incidentally, that you have to become a slave to political correctness or that your brain has to be put on lease to the shrillest sentiments. That is, it doesn’t mean that all (or even most) proposals have to be accepted. Quite the opposite — rationality often entails deviance and defiance. But it does mean that you don’t get to toss a woman’s advice out of hand because you wrongly interpret her as giving marching orders directly to your doorstep.
Ophelia, I think it is important–essential even– to note that Richard Dawkins wasn’t saying “Stop you’re whining. Full stop.” I think his message is “This is not the appropriate venue for such complaints,”
In the second link that Miranda provides, we have this quote from Rebecca Watson:
“This is especially interesting since Richard Dawkins sat next to me in Dublin and heard me talk about the threats of rape I get.”
It is important to remember that the panel in which she sat next to Richard, was supposed to be about communicating atheism. Instead, she used her allotted time to go after another speaker–Paula Kirby –calling her reasoning and arguments “from ignorance” and “from privilege.” After which she went on to complain about the misogyny that she is subjected to. I want to make it clear that I do not minimise, or trivialise, what Rebecca what has been through. Just as I’m sure RD doesn’t either. But who can honestly argue that a panel on “communicating atheism”, is the right venue for it? OK, I guess the argument can be made, but it is a weak one.
Later, she does it again. On a Keynote talk, which was supposed to be about the religious Right’s attack on women’s rights, she instead spends half the talk complaining about her own woes, and pulls the now famous character-assasination-from-the-podium-gate.
Again, no one is saying she doesn’t have the right to complain about her own problem with misogyny. What I’m saying, what I believe RD is saying, is this: when you bring these issues up at a venue convened for discussing Very Serious Issues(tm), like FGM, polygamy, forced marriages, etc., bringing up Elevator-Guy shows Rebecca’s own privilege: Westerner Privilege.
And finally, as what should be regarded as the coup-de-grace on her credibility, she instigates an “internet campaign”, against one the strongest allies of the feminist movement there is today.
I find it ironic that PZ, who has chastised men for bringing male genital mutilation when the discussion is about female genital mutilation, would not see how this falls under the same category.
Yes indeed
Ah. Thanks Cereal. I don’t know enough about the panel so I didn’t know that. (I hate watching speakers and panels on videos. I get soooo booooooored.) It jibes with what I was thinking about Maryam being there (though not on that panel I think) and also about Kirby.
If that’s right, it would be helpful if Richard would explain it himself. That might make some sense of it for others.
I agree, none of this will really matter unless Dawkins himself explains. Hopefully TAM 9 next week will serve as an amicable place for “both sides” to come together and find out what the other side was trying to communicate.
I wont dispute that Dawkins may have put his foot in his mouth though, lol.
RDs comments were likely a reflex to how the whole incident was derailing the goal of the atheist conference. I can see how the organizers would feel betrayed by allowing RW to speak at their conference only for it to be hijacked by a personal incident.
Sexism and women’s issues are of outmost importance and should be discussed freely; but not used to derail a conference with a different (although parallel) goal.
That would make sense of his comments by putting them in the context of a wider drama. However, it wouldn’t get him off the hook for what he said, when he said it. His reaction to Watson was a dismissal of a class of harms that can be legitimately grieved.
Many people hold onto their slogans of “interrogate your privilege” like they were sentimental stuffed toys. It is annoying and sometimes pretentious. But if you want to address the habit, then address the habit as such — just don’t think that you get to dismiss the argument in which it occurs.
“That would make sense of his comments by putting them in the context of a wider drama. However, it wouldn’t get him off the hook for what he said, when he said it.”
Exactly. That’s what I’ve been working out over the morning. I think I see what he was getting at, especially if Cereal has it right, but the way (and place) he said it was a good deal too…well, hostile. It implies that Rebecca actually thinks her elevator moment is more important than FGM, and that’s frankly both absurd and rude.
So, a woman voices being creeped out a an unwelcome sexual advance. A male leader in the movement sees fit to dismiss her concern, and when she calls him on it, she’s in the wrong? No one is saying he wasn’t an influential biologist or atheist, but acting like his comments are totz cool is silencing to women in the movement who have complaints about their treatment.
After Watson claimed black people were intellectually inferior to white, no one accused him of not helping to discover the double helix. Same case. Why should he continue to be prominent when he feels like the response to a woman’s experience is “Shut up?”? Why should I give him money if I told him about my rape, his response would probably be “Well, at least you have intact genitals!”?
Yeah, there might be a valid point in there if Rebecca had even the tiniest leg to stand on in her complaint… you know, like if she had been raped. He didn’t trivialize someone’s rape. He pointed out that she was complaining about nothing. If I told him about the dude with the annoying, high-pitched voice sitting behind me in the cafeteria yesterday, and his response was “Well, at least no one cut off your penis,” I’d laugh and say “You got me there.” Because I was complaining about nothing. Just like Rebecca. Nothing.
No, Rebecca was complaining about being followed into an elevator, cornered and hit on despite giving a talk about how such actions were demeaning and driving women away from the skeptics movement. He had his “No” and pushed his sexual desires on her anyway. He needed to be smacked down for his failure to respect a woman’s agency and her right to be in a public (and since she was at this conference as a speaker, professional) space without being sexualized against her will.
Pray, How are you privy to this exultant, information?\
April, you are a Prophet our times!
You are the keeper to the celestial video camera that belongs to Beelzebub!
Oh, how can you not be the Queen of the Universe with your female yet frail omnipotence?
I watched the video she posted and read her entries.
And from that, can you cite where she claims the man “followed [me] into the elevator”? You are assuming facts not in evidence (even assuming that there was another person that elevator in the first case – a proposition for which we have zero evidence).
I’m, in fact, going to refuse to do any of that. Your position is that we don’t know that anything happened, that she could just be a liar. There’s no sense in arguing with someone who holds such a position because there’s literally no way to prove a negative (i.e. that Rebecca Watson is not a liar).
Ok,
You
must
be
correct
then
because
you
watched
the
vidz.
Great.
That
is
settled
then
.
Oh, I see. Because it’s not possible to prove a negative, you’re incapable of citing to evidence which would even putatively shore your misrepresentation that she said she was followed in there.
Incidentally, not accepting blindly that a proposition is true doesn’t imply someone is a liar. There is just no evidence to suggest to suggest that the proposition is correct.
Further, demonstrating in some way that something exists isn’t a negative. I have asked no one to prove the guy doesn’t exist; it’s the default position when addressing any claim. Assume it’s false, and then evaluate the evidence to see if it disabuses that default position. So far, no evidence has been presented to disabuse it. It would take very little evidence indeed to demonstrate that the person at least existed and was in that elevators. If only Rebecca Watson knew how to name names.
Oh now, that is going a bit far.
How is RW expected to determine the identity of her supposed elevator-hitter?
How can she be expected to “name names” if, as has been alluded, she had never bumped into the supposed nerd-in-question?
I think not.
How is she to determine it? How is an advocate of ___ supposed to go about determining it? That’s not my problem, and I don’t accept responsibility for having to tell someone how they need to go about establishing their claims.
That burden rests on the shoulders of someone who makes a claim. She thought it sufficiently important to lecture on it, and make a video about it. I would then presume that were she to be questioned about it, she’d be able to, you know, like we’re all otherwise required to do, demonstrate some reason to think the claim is meritorious.
Further, she’s been asked to describe the person so that others can help identify him. We all would like to ask him some questions. She’s conspicuously responded that she needn’t account for or answer questions from people because after all PZ Myers blogged about it, and that solves the whole ordeal.
Your reply may well have cogently devastated my line of thinking.
But with this artificial thread-squeeze, I cannot sensibly respond.
The “default position” you have assumed, and clearly identified that you hold, is not one that most people share. Most people are provisionally taking testimony at face value all the time — we sort of have to, since otherwise we wouldn’t even be able to communicate. So the initial burden is really on the skeptics who would ask us to change our habits, and/or those (like you) who just don’t really want to apply the platitude to this particular case.
Of course, you can resist this in various ways. You might be a Pyrrhonian skeptic, for instance. Or, more likely, you think the source — in this case, Rebecca Watson — is untrustworthy. But then again, I’m not sure you’re in much of a position to talk about trustworthiness, since you don’t seem to want it for yourself (hence, “bloody tampons”, etc).
He was in the comments section. He didn’t present a paper about it.
I’m willing to concede that he was sarcastic and wasn’t really picking on someone his own size. But there’s no middle ground with the other side on this debate.
What middle ground do you want feminists to agree to?
I’m not addressing some collective group of “feminists”. And you don’t have to budge an inch.
Perhaps it’s not “middle ground” but “unknowable ground”. Maybe EG guy was an aggressive pervert. I don’t know. Maybe RD was consciously “silencing” women. I don’t know. I don’t think but I can’t crawl inside his mind. Maybe RW was trying to humiliate an audience member. I wasn’t there.
Miranda, Thank you for your reasoned comments. I too read through the Skepchick website after many years of not bothering and was surprised by the either direct or implied vitriol.
Actually I was more than suprised, I was disgusted. And now having seen how RW has used atheist forums to push her own agenda, has not helped in my impression of her since I first met her at TAM6 and the years of (barely) tolerating her on SGU.
Thank you again for taking a reasonable approach and by default the moral highground.
The problem with the reaction to Dawkins is the jump from “he’s wrong about that” to a very dire diagnosis. You could just say he ignored certain relevant facts, but no, we get: he’s too old, too rich, too privileged, too white, too male, too sexist, too misogynist, too clueless about women’s issues, too blah, blah, blah. This sounds like an inference to the worst explanation to me. Whatever his mistake, I think the backlashers have made a much bigger mistake.
Quite.
Rampant ad hominems are indicative a paucity of intellect.
“What, with his automatic hatred of those who dare to complain about male gential mutilation, and the “man-splainin’” bullshit, I’ve had enough.”
You do not seem to understand exactly what an ad homimen is.
One hopes that ad hominems are the last resort, and not the first. So Dr. Kazez is right in the sense that when people jump to conclusions about the other party without first establishing the other party is systematically ignorant or blind to certain facts, they are behaving in a way that is hostile to reason.
However, it is not correct to suggest that all ad hominems are irrational or inappropriate. For instance, there is a field known as the “epistemology of ignorance” which deserves some concern. The idea is that there are certain subjective biases that promote inattentiveness and pre-empt any kind of rational conversation. (We might call these a subspecies of “error theory”.) There is no reason why we cannot or should not appeal to the epistemology of ignorance, once the ignorance and error have been demonstrated. Hence, sometimes, ‘privilege’ is a perfectly sound reason to explain why people cannot see the thing in front of their faces.
I hasten to add that I think the explanation of ‘privilege’ misses the mark in this particular case, in various respects. As Watson remarked, Dawkins is not exactly deprived of death threats and experiences with sexual assault. (Indeed, Dawkins’s reading his hate mail is set as Watson’s ring tone.)
It seems more like he lives in a culture that is downstream from frank and open conversation about sexual norms of propriety. It doesn’t seem to hit on his radar that this might be a non-embarrassing and fruitful conversation. So he reacted to Watson’s remarks with an inappropriate, dismissive non-sequitur.
Agreed.
Agreed except that he implied that Rebecca thinks her elevator moment is more important than FGM and child marriage, and that’s a good deal over the top.
I don’t see where he implied that. I think he just implied she thought her elevator moment was worthy of public attention, even in a world where women are subjected to FGM, can’t drive, etc. He thinks otherwise. Dismissive, yes, but I don’t see where he said she thought the elevator moment was more important than FGM etc.
Uh oh, skinny reply warning.
This part:
“I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so”
The “stop whining” bit – the parody voice is saying “that’s way WORSE so stop whining” – as if that’s what Rebecca would say.
Ahh, ok. Now I see where you’re getting that from, but it’s a bit of rhetoric, and we’re supposed to glean the message. Surely he’s not trying to say she really thinks elevator moment is worse than FGM, since nobody’s insane enough to think that, and he knows that, and we know it too. The message, I take it, is that her priorities are askew–she’s talking about little things instead of big things. It’s sarcasm, not to be taken at face value, I’d say.
As I mentioned on ERV’s blog, a thing that bothers me about this debate is the extreme polarization. With divisive rhetoric like “gender traitor”, “anti-woman”, “rape-apologist”, I sense that many have moved from “I disagree with you” to “you are my enemy because you don’t think the way I do.” It smacks of fanaticism and dogmatism, much like a self-righteous religious fundamentalist condemning his/her peers as “heretics” or “apostates” because they have somewhat different scriptural interpretation.
Saying that, I can understand how RW felt uncomfortable. I think the elevator guy (EG) was a bit socially clumsy and acted a bit inappropriately. I think we’ve all had our socially clumsy moments. I agree that it’s important to be mindful of context. But I don’t think EG’s social clumsiness justifies a cause célèbre crusade for radical feminism.
What’s crazy is that there are now people who are suggesting that EG was a mysogynist for even getting on the elevator with RW in the first place — even if he was minded his own business and didn’t say anything. Or that a feminisist-sensitive man, late at night, should cross to the other side of the street if he sees an unaccompanied woman he’s about to pass. And if you disagree with this then you’re a “gender traitor”, “mysogynist”… etc… name your label. That’s just absolutely bonkers.
I refuse to accept the idea that men need to perceive women as delicate victims that they have to go out of their way to constantly tiptoe around to avoid alarming her. I perceive women as human beings and as equals. When I pass an unaccompanied woman on a street or get on an elevator with her, I mind my own business, respect her privacy, and act like a gentleman and I don’t think anything else is required. If that makes me “anti-woman” then I reject their extremist gender identity ideology.
Excuse me! But I almost choked on my coffee when you said that. It was you above who said that Watson’s “sole claim to minor fame is: being famous for being a media-whore”. “Not a scientist, nor a sceptic. But famous for being a snarky media-whore.” Then you said later in the same post “Consider the reactions to her many marriage proposals. Consider her media-whoring of her accepted marriage proposal” In another post you said that the people (The women commenters I presume) on PZ’s site were “self-confirming anonymous foul-mouthed harpies”
Read you own post above again.
I fail to spot an interrogative in that post.
Is there a question of which you wish me to respond?
No it wasn’t a question.
Ah, an rhetorical invective.
Do you, perchance, have anything substantive with which to react?
If I am not mistaken, your diatribe alluded to a transgression committed by me.
One which might be rectified by my re-reading my own bathetic keyboard skills.
Are you with me so far, old chum?
that was for Michael Kingsford Gray
I accept the vicissitudes of this earth-bound; interlocutor binding.
You choked upon the utterances of other, not I.
I have composed an admittedly long-winded diatribe (::yawn::) that might add a bit of perspective, should anyone care to read it:
http://www.casteyanqui.com/sexism.html
There’s now articles on Gawker and The New Statesman and the Atlantic Wire condemning Dawkins, e.g. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum
If I were a theist, or right-winger, or a member of the patriarchy I’d be laughing, pointing, and laughing. Oh, Pharyngula, what hast thou wrought?
Oh, PZ! Generous and self-devoted being!
To clarify, we had spoken about this, Kirby was talking privileged nonsense, and I was already trying to get a comment in, but didnt get the mike handed to me. Rebecca said she would bring it up at the next panel, which she did.
What I think happened, and I agree with Ophelia on this, is that Dawkins when he commented on Pharyngula, had in mind what Maryam Namazie said and felt that there should be more of what she’s talking about, instead of Rebecca’s expressed fears of rape. The Pharyngula comment was still clumsy, rude and a terrible analogy, but I think it can be explained that way.
I’m honestly curious: why do you find it acceptable to dismiss her views as “privileged nonsense”? Why do you think that Rebecca “gets it” (and that you “get it”), but that Paula doesn’t? Why is Paula’s viewpoint any less important, valid, or legitimate than Rebecca’s? Do you not see the irony in your argument? You seem to be asserting that, as a male, you understand the “plight” of women better than Paula does. Do you not see how dismissive and ridiculous that is?
Context, Miranda. Paula Kirby, a successful writer, is someone who has “made it” in the movement. I spoke to her personally about this in Dublin (if more briefly than I wanted to), and she just flat out denies that there is any issue with sexism at all, or difficulty for women who want to join the movement or become active in meetings etc. It has nothing to do with the plight of women, but I don’t think even you (whom I don’t know very well, I admit) would go as far as to deny that the skeptic/atheist movement is not afflicted by sexist attitudes at all, and that these do not at least occasionally pose a problem or hurdle for females who consider joining the movement.
Context, Martin. Rebecca has also “made it” in the movement, right? So if that’s the standard you’re going by (in other words, that because Paula has “made it”, she doesn’t understand the “hurdles for females who consider joining the movement”), then why is the perspective of one woman (Rebecca) who has “made it” in the movement valid, while the perspective of another woman (Paula) who has “made it” in the movement invalid nonsense?
You deny there is sexism in the atheist or skeptic movement ? And you believe that a woman has it as easy as a man to participate in the movement, if they just set their mind to it ? Because that is Paula Kirby’s argument, and she can correct me if I’m misrepresenting her, but I don’t think I am. Now I’m curious !
Well, I have Paula Kirby here behind this sign, and she says you know nothing of her ideas. Read the comment she left on my website, which certainly does not “deny that there is sexism at all”:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/dublin-panel-women-atheist-activists/#comment-116920
“I am not saying that all men, or even all women, are enlightened on this subject, or that all sexism is dead. But I am saying that we women do ourselves no favours by assuming that the system is weighted against us, or by claiming prejudice when, in fact, we have just been slow or even reluctant to take the opportunities that are there.”
and this
“Yes, there’s the occasional neanderthal, in any walk of life But it’s up to us whether we let him put us off doing what we really want to do.”
That doesn’t sound like she doesn’t admit sexism, but that she differs from others in how she thinks women should gain equality.
Thank you for having that conversation today. I had no idea that it would be necessary to have it there for Paula Kirby to respond to it in order to rebut this spurious claim.
I’m replying to the main one for the sake of avoiding the long, long narrowing of reply replies.
But that is outrageous. Paula Kirby is publicly on record saying, “I am not saying that all men, or even all women, are enlightened on this subject, or that all sexism is dead.”
And, “Yes, there’s the occasional neanderthal, in any walk of life But it’s up to us whether we let him put us off doing what we really want to do. At the risk of sounding like a tedious self-help book, we don’t have to give him that power over us.”
About women who’ve climbed the ranks, she further explains:
“. . .attitude that I have found in the vast majority of successful women I’ve met in a range of walks of life. In almost any field you care to consider, the women who have made it to the top are generally not sympathetic to the view that men or the system were desperately trying to hold them back. ”
And:
“Are we going to say their voices and experiences do not count, because they have made it? – that the very fact of their success makes them ‘privileged’ beyond the point of having anything valid to say on the subject? That any woman who has made it automatically doesn’t count or can even be advanced as further evidence that ‘ordinary’ women can’t make it? ”
She addresses your topic here explicitly, directly and unambiguously. She even notes it would be bizarre if someone were to do this – like the Catholic Church saying Mother Theresa’s doubting her faith was further evidence of her faith.
Disagree with all you like: but to say what you said completely misrepresents her, as she’s on record public saying at least two different places of which I’m aware.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/dublin-panel-women-atheist-activists/#comment-116920
(sorry for the length and the link)
Sure, I know what she said. I just differ in my interpretation of her comments. “Occasional Neanderthal” is a ridiculous misrepresentation of societal realities as they are, as far as I see it. And the rest of it, as I’ve tried to point out, is said by someone in a position of privilege, who has already made it. Her story and experience is not that of the average female in social movements, or else we would have 2 horsewomen.
Again, if you’re going to say that Paula is “privileged” and has “already made it”, how can you not also apply those terms to Rebecca? By your standards, is Rebecca somehow not “privileged”? Has she not “made it”?
Evidence please.
And do you think that Rebecca’s experience is representative of “the average female in social movements”?
That is a very strange characterisation, Martin, and it smacks of ad hominem.
What has Paula done to earn your slur of “privileged”? Other than write better than most of us, that is? A few short years ago she wasn’t even an atheist, and now all of a sudden you have decided that her comments can be dismissed because her hard work and effort at writing has achieved a measure of recognition? Weird.
You haven’t even gotten as far as explaining how this is “privileged”; let alone how this merits a dismissal of everything she says.
You post amounts to an ad hominem, followed by “I disagree with her, therefore she is wrong”.
I won’t say much about your assertion “she just flat out denies that there is any issue with sexism at all” other than it is an utter mischaracterisation of what Paula said, and therefore, incorrect.
I think you just said about the least of it.
OK, I think it’s best if I just go for a walk for a little while. I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s aware of her actual views and who saw this to reply to this chicanery.
Thanks!
She addressed that in the panel talk in Dublin. She said, in short, it’s called writing a bestseller. Moreover, she was an “average” woman. How’d she get where she is? She said, well, someone’s gotta do it, and I think I can. Then she did it.
Yes, the occasional (neanderthal) jackass. In other words, the overwhelming majority of people one meets isn’t actually trying to oppress one. Then she goes on to explicate how hard it is to get women to participate even when she’s actively recruiting them in a way that she wouldn’t try to recruit a man; they just don’t want to based on her career of, you know, organizing things and people to do things at the organized things.
So she went from “average” to “successful” to trying to help other women replicate her success only to be dismissed out of hand for not having “perspective” due to “privilege”. That little bit of privilege is normally called “merit”, a pay off for a lot of hard “work” and “perseverance” to “make it” by one’s own “abilities”. But no – having worked her way up on talent, skill and determination by refusing to play the victim, she’s now too privileged to know how to be successful.
I guess it was just an accident for her – she managed to accidentally fall down and land higher up on the ladder of “success” so couldn’t really have any views on how to get there that would be worthwhile. Unless, of course, we’re discussing climbing that ladder by the Theory of Intelligent Falling.
Hell, maybe there was just some nice menfolk on that ladder helping her up just so they push on her ass and peek up her skirt. I cannot tell you on how many levels what you’ve written here does her a disservice. You’ve essentially said she stepped on the backs and necks of her sisters, climbed the ladder to some degree of success and started pissing down the ladder on those who she’s now far too removed from to “get”.
You have libeled her, and you should apologize to her for it.
Martin:
WHAT? Kirby was talking privileged nonsense?!!!
I see that you are siding with Watson when she claimed in her video (and I quote): Kirby “doesn’t have a problem with sexism in the atheist community and, because of that, she assumes that there is no sexism.”
That is NOT true. It is a complete misrepresentation of what Kirby actually said, and if you were there you should know better.
Listen for yourself at about 00:07:26 in the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_O33OsA-vM
Here is what Kirby said:
—————
“Now obviously all of this would be quite different, and I would be arguing differently, if I had seen anything to suggest that women were being deliberately held back by the men in the movement. All I can say is that, in my years of being part of all this, I’ve seen nothing to suggest that. I certainly don’t feel that any of the men in this room or anywhere else are trying to hold me back.”
—————
Read it again: Kirby was NOT saying that there is “no sexism” among atheists. She wasn’t even talking about “sexism.” She was simply saying that she hasn’t experienced an instance when the men in the atheist movement have deliberately attempted to HOLD HER BACK in participating fully.
That is certainly NOT what Watson addressed in her “rebuttal” to Kirby, in which she called her above remarks an “argument from ignorance” and an “argument from privilege.” Instead, she talked about sexual harassment, sexist e-mails, and misogynous threats that she has experienced –from atheists and non-atheists alike. That is NOT the same topic by any stretch of the imagination! Talk about twisting another’s words to fit one’s own agenda!
Now, if you and Watson really do want to contradict Kirby’s statement, have you indeed experienced being deliberately HELD BACK from fully participating by the men in our atheist movement? We would be most interested to hear how, when, where, and with whom that has taken place.
I’d say her line about “I am not saying that all men, or even all women, are enlightened on this subject, or that all sexism is dead” implies that she doesn’t consider it to be an issue that should hold women back from being successful. Which to me is a balatantly naive way of seeing things.
@Martin:
“Are we going to say their voices and experiences do not count, because they have made it? – that the very fact of their success makes them ‘privileged’ beyond the point of having anything valid to say on the subject? That any woman who has made it automatically doesn’t count or can even be advanced as further evidence that ‘ordinary’ women can’t make it? Would that not be truly bizarre, akin to the Roman Catholic Church trying to spin Mother Teresa’s doubts as further evidence of the truth of her beliefs?” –PK
Err, no, why would anyone say that ? Complete strawman. But do you not think that it might alter someone’s perspective ? Btw, I don’t think Miranda is correct in comparing RW to Paula Kirby, one is a young woman attached to JREF who gives talks and has a blog, the other is a well-recognised writer and essayist who PZ and Coyne both link to when she’s written something awesome in the WaPo. Not quite the same league of “made it”.
So at what point was Paula’s perspective so altered so that her views no longer counted? When she got her Post column? And what achievement could Watson have that would suddenly render her too “privileged” to count? If she wrote a book, would that suddenly make all of her utterances “privileged nonsense” (a term you used to devalue Kirby)?
Really Martin, Kirby came up the hard way, and it’s neither civil nor accurate to dismiss what she says as “privileged nonsense.”
Wow, let’s see how much you can cram into this bad idea of yours. RW is young and Paula is presumably old? Lovely.
Have you read Pharyngula lately? How many posts about Rebecca Watson has PZ put up?
No, they’re not in the same league of success; one of them is interested in discussing ideas and teaching. The other is interested in talking about Rebecca Watson and how many people want to have sex with Rebecca Watson.
One of them is thoughtful and reflective, giving insightful talks on a range of issues with respect for everyone’s basic equality. The other exacts vengeance on people whom she dislikes whenever she gets any position of power to do so.
They are in different classes, yes. No question there. But it has nothing to do with age or gender; it’s about goals and hard work.
Well, we’re going to have to just agree to disagree on that, then. Rebecca has a huge following and speaks at many conferences. PZ frequently promotes her on his blog (not that there’s anything wrong with that. I just feel the need to point it out, as you’re using the fact that Jerry and PZ link to Paula’s articles in support of the assertion that she has “made it” in a way that Rebecca has not). Also, I’m not sure what Rebecca’s age has to do with anything.
Is it also worth mentioning that Watson has a page in Widipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Watson ), but Kirby… not a word?
I am frankly amazed at the bloggers who have gulped down the Watson koolaid on this.
Wikipedia coverage is very hit-and-miss. The presense of a Wikipedia page means little, except that one person in the world was motivated to create a page. Kirby could have a page too if she, or one of her fans, decided to make one and link it to a few mainstream media mentions.
Are you trying to be funny ? What is the relevance of how many posts PZ puts up about anyone with regards to the truth value of the linked person’s claims ?
I’m disappointed that you should be maintaining this silly strawman that somehow her views “don’t count”, which is not what I said. What I think people have been trying to say to Paula Kirby is that just because she made it, that doesn’t mean that other women might not have problems, and experience sexism and male group think and staunch resistance from males in the movement.
By the way, since I have you here, I covered the female atheist activists panel in a blog post going back to June 5. (and it was linked to by PZ, *gasp* !)
It’s relevant because the topic of discussion here is who has “made it”, not whose claims are truthful.
But that makes no sense at all, sorry. PZ links to my posts too, and I def haven’t “made it” in any way, shape or form.(not that I want to)
Part of your evidence for your assertion that Paula has “made it” in a way that Rebecca has not (“Not quite the same league of “made it”, as you say) is that Paula “is a well-recognised writer and essayist who PZ and Coyne both link to when she’s written something awesome in the WaPo.”. I’m pointing out to you that if you’re going to make that argument, then you need to acknowledge that PZ often links to Rebecca.
You’re pointing out a complete non sequitur. Being linked to by PZ Myers does not reflect on anyone’s status as a blogger, or one’s cred as a reliable source for anything. The fact that PZ links to Rebecca doesn’t mean that she is famous. Otherwise I, or all of PZ’s students he has ever linked to for example, would be instant celebrities according to your theory, which we are not.
You are to me! Especially after your vivisection of the Catholic report I could barely manage to read without my skin crawling.
But I don’t count – I’m “privileged”.
I’m not sure what else to say. Perhaps we’re talking at cross-purposes here, I don’t know. What I do know is that you said part of the reason Paula has “made it” is that she has been linked to by Jerry and PZ. If that’s part of the reason she’s “made it”, then the same standard must apply to Rebecca: she’s “made it”, in part, because PZ has frequently linked to her. If it applies to Paula, it applies to Rebecca.
Again, I fear we’re talking at cross-purposes and don’t know what else to say. Perhaps this mythical “Coyne of Hale” to which you refer might want to chime in.
Yeah, I made a typo. Good pickup.
Sorry, I didn’t realize it was a typo- I thought it was some sort of comment about Jerry. Apologies, I misunderstood.
One thing in Kirby’s comment sticks out as very curious: “I am saying that we women do ourselves no favours by assuming that the system is weighted against us”.
I can imagine this might mean the system is weighted against women but they should pretend it’s not, along the lines of of course free will does not exist but you should pretend it does anyway. That would be an interesting argument, but if it’s what Kirby intended, I expect she’d have developed it further.
The more obvious parsing is that she must mean the system is in fact not weighted against women. In this case, I wonder how we are supposed to take seriously an argument which contradicts all the relevant economic and experimental psychology literature.
Here, and below, you appear to have not fully comprehended the specific domain to which Paula’s comments were aimed.
This error seems to abound around this debacle, despite multiple corrections!
Paula’s remarks about the lack of apparent sexism (against females) applied SOLELY to the domain of organizing atheist conferences, NOT the world in general.
In fact, the sexually preferential treatment that she has felt obliged to implement has been mostly in favour of women, and explicitly against so-called privileged white males.
You would do well to re-read Paula’s full remarks, in context.
This part of Kirby’s comment is very curious: “I am saying that we women do ourselves no favours by assuming that the system is weighted against us”.
I can imagine this might mean that of course the system is weighted against women but they should pretend it’s not, along the lines of arguments that of course there’s no such thing as free will but you should pretend otherwise. This would be an interesting argument, but if it’s what Kirby meant then I expect she would have developed it further.
The more obvious parsing is that Kirby thinks the system really is not weighted against women. In that case, I wonder how we are supposed to take seriously an argument which contradicts all the relevant literature in economics and experimental psychology.
Oh, my. Please try to understand: Kirby was NOT talking about society in general. The “system” she was referring to was that within the *atheist movement*! The panel was about “Women Atheist Activists” –NOT feminism and/or sexism *outside* of that movement.
Why are bloggers ignoring this? It would be like a woman expressing an opinion on, say, Women Libertarians, and bloggers concluding that her remarks apply to Democrats, Republicans, Communists, Tea Partyers, and every other political party on earth. Sigh….
“Oh, my. Please try to understand: Kirby was NOT talking about society in general. The system she was referring to was that within the *atheist movement*!”
That’s quite false. She went on and on about how sexism is not holding women back in business, and this is what most obviously contradicts the evidence from economics and experimental psychology. (The notion that the atheist movement is somehow free from the sexism of society in general is laughable, but we hardly even need to go into that when Kirby appears oblivious to demonstrable facts in her own field of work.)
No more of this “she was only talking about atheism” stuff, when she clearly said otherwise. Here are Kirby’s remarks in context, to show how far off the mark you are:
“My background is in business. I have lost count of the number of times I have been present at meetings when the women said nothing and left it all to the men. I’ve been guilty of it myself, many a time. Was it because the men weren’t willing to listen to the women? I don’t think it was. Did the men dismiss our comments if we made them? No, they didn’t. Did they try to stop us making them? No, they didn’t do that either. Were the women lacking in ideas? No, of course not. We just didn’t speak up. Crucially, many of us didn’t speak up, even when openly invited to do so.
Similarly, I spent 7 of the last 10 years organising events for business people: conferences, seminars, workshops, that kind of thing. Over and over again, I tried – how I tried! – to find women speakers. Over and over again, other delegates, both male and female, would tell me they’d like to hear from more women speakers. So the desire was there on the part of the audience to listen to what women had to say, and it was there on the part of the organisers too. And we didn’t just invite: we encouraged, we offered support, we offered coaching, we offered to change the format of events to make them feel less daunting: we went out of our way, event after event after event, to encourage women to take a more prominent part. And almost always to no avail. There were two or three who were already happy to do it anyway and didn’t need our encouragement. Another, I remember, who finally agreed to do it after her initial panic at the very idea, and who, despite being very nervous on the day, said afterwards it was the best thing she’d ever done. But otherwise, it was all for nothing. Try as we might, try as I might, most women we approached simply refused to even consider it, saying ‘Oh no, I couldn’t possibly.’
So I have to ask: Who was holding those women back? They weren’t just being given equal access to prominence as speakers – they were being positively encouraged in ways that male speakers were not. But ultimately, there was something in their own heads that was stopping them. It wasn’t that men didn’t want to listen to them, it wasn’t that they weren’t being given the opportunities, it wasn’t that they weren’t respected, it wasn’t that no one thought they had stories worth telling and valuable contributions to make. They just didn’t feel confident enough to do it – even when offered coaching to help them prepare.
So this is my frustration. I did a sociology module as part of my degree many years ago: I know the arguments about socialisation and normative values, and structural discrimination and all that malarky. All I can say in response is that, while all these things may be true to a greater or lesser extent, banging on about them does not even begin to help women achieve their goals. If we, as women, externalise the reasons why we are not being heard as much as we say we’d like to be, and seek to put the blame on other people, nothing is going to change or, at the very best, it is only going to change painfully slowly. It is a simple fact of life that it is always easier to change our own behaviour, than to persuade other people to change theirs.
So there is an alternative, and it is this alternative that I would urge women to seize with both hands – whether we’re talking about how we interact in our jobs, in our social lives or in the atheist movement. And that alternative is to take responsibility for ourselves and our own success. To view ourselves as mature, capable adults who can take things in our stride, and can speak up appropriately. To really start believing that we can do whatever men can do. To stop seizing on excuses for staying quiet and submissive, stop blaming it on men or hierarchies or misogyny or, worst of all, ‘privilege’, and start simply practising being more assertive. To wake up to the fact that, actually, the lack of prominent women is a theme in almost all walks of life, and many, probably most, organisations will leap at the chance to put a woman into a position of leadership. I would even say that some organisations will leap too far to put a woman in a position of leadership: I have seen, more than once, a mediocre female candidate put on a short list for a Chief Executive position simply because the organisation hoped against hope that she’d be more impressive in person than she was on paper, because they would have actively liked to appoint a woman.
I am not saying that all men, or even all women, are enlightened on this subject, or that all sexism is dead. But I am saying that we women do ourselves no favours by assuming that the system is weighted against us, or by claiming prejudice when, in fact, we have just been slow or even reluctant to take the opportunities that are there. The doors are open – but it’s no good just standing on the threshold and peering fearfully across at what’s on the other side.”
Very good! THANK YOU for taking the time to transcribe the fuller context of Kirby’s remarks.
Now that you have read them, can you honestly say with a straight face that “she assumes that there is NO sexism” –like Watson accused?
Phew! Finally we get back to the original point.
By the way, you state:
———–
“No more of this “she was only talking about atheism” stuff, when she clearly said otherwise. Here are Kirby’s remarks in context, to show how far off the mark you are:”
———–
You copied-and-pasted the above quote from Kirby’s follow-up post in Jerry Coyne’s blog. It is *NOT* was she expressed in her presentation on the “Women Atheist Activists” panel –which was indeed about her experience as a woman in the *atheist* community. That was disingenous and misleading of you to imply that her subsequent post on sexism in general was part of the original presentation which Watson criticized.
And for the record, I wholeheartedly agree with Kirby’s position: in the presentation, the Q&A, and her follow-up remarks. We are fortunate to have such a thoughtful and eloquent advocate among us in the atheist movement.
“That was disingenous and misleading of you to imply that her subsequent post on sexism in general was part of the original presentation which Watson criticized.”
I intended no such implication; you are projecting onto me your expectations of what you think I’m talking about. Yes, I copied that from Coyne’s blog. That would have been clear to you from the beginning if you had paid any attention, as Coyne even quoted a section of it here. Here’s what I originally said, which you objected to:
«This part of Kirby’s comment is very curious: “I am saying that we women do ourselves no favours by assuming that the system is weighted against us”.»
That original quote was obviously copied from Coyne’s blog. That is what I was reacting to.
If this is what Kirby thinks of business, that the system really is not weighted against women, I wonder how we are supposed to take seriously an argument which contradicts all the relevant literature in economics and experimental psychology.
I have no reason to trust Kirby’s comprehension of anything beyond her own field, if she denies the existence or relevance of male privilege in her own field.
It is apparent from her comment at Coyne’s blog that she either believes there is no systemic sexism in business, or she believes such sexism is irrelevant. And she is the one who chooses to draw this parallel between business and atheist activism, so I don’t see how else to interpret her except as saying that there’s something relevant in her prescription for women to act in business–pretend texism does not exist–which is supposed to parallel her prescription for atheist activism.
spellcheck! texism= sexism
You can never be too rich or too thin!
sg, you took the time to transcribe Paula Kirby answering your question, so I think you’re genuinely trying to understand her success (not make her wrong). For you to be a success (at some thing), you need to ask yourself, 1) What do you want? and 2) How can you get there? You don’t need to “pretend” bias doesn’t exist — I’ll never go so far as “magical thinking” to say our imagination can create “anything” (like that Carlos Castaneda book with the airplane without an engine, I hate that). Instead I will say this: In social structures, like corporations, we teach other people how to treat us. And to be a winner, you can study how winners think, and you’re doing good to ask what’s Paula got. Give yourself credit for your first observation, to see her success is possible. By the way, I’m a white guy, 52 years old, and I learned half this stuff from my girlfriends, from Oprah, and other women.
(I didn’t transcribe anything. I copied that from Coyne’s blog, it wasn’t a response to me, and I’m a man so sexism isn’t a barrier to me.)
If the reasoning is that because Paula Kirby (or Oprah?) can be successful, sexism is therefore no longer a barrier to women in business, this is like reasoning that because Barack Obama was elected, racism is no longer a barrier to any black person’s success. The error here is due to a selection bias.
Kirby works in the UK, correct? From page 12 of “Women in science – fulfillment or frustration” ( studyclient.norc.org/jole/SOLEweb/7203.pdf ), 29% of the UK gender pay gap among full-time workers in all fields combined, not just science, is due to discrimination against women.
This is not due to “the occasional neanderthal”. This is a systemic problem, which Kirby seems to deny either the existence or the relevance of. It’s not clear she’s even aware of this, but if she is aware of its existence, then it is irrational for her to exhort other women to not blame male privilege.
When about 30% of the gender pay gap is due to sexism against women, there’s a good chance that any particular woman’s pay is lower than it would be without sexism. It’s unscientific to deny this.
Yes, I acknowledge those facts, in a topic I’ll call #1, of sociology, psychology, etc., with statistics, etc. Yes, I acknowledge the systemic problems. But I replied to your post (at face value) because you raised a question in a topic I’ll call #2: What should an individual do? (a verb), and so far, you’ve offered women the verb blame.
Now I have to laugh — you asked your question in topic #2 rhetorically, as if Paula had no good answer, then you posted Paula’s excellent answer, where she acknowledged your point in #1 and she went over your head in #2: “while all these things may be true to a greater or lesser extent, banging on about them does not even begin to help women achieve their goals.” Srsly, you copied and pasted that as if Paula wasn’t getting #2?
Well, maybe you’re better at topic #1 than #2 — but then you should read what Jean Kazez wrote about the epistemology of dismissing Paula’s experience.
[meta]
I note this implementation of threaded comment nesting imposes a de-facto limit to such nesting, since they so quickly become unreadable.
(Not good)
I know. I didn’t realize that until this post, though, because I’d never received this many comments before (and thus didn’t understand how goofy and narrow they’d look). In the future, I’ll probably turn off threaded comments, but doing so now might make this comments section even more confusing. I’m not sure.
Well, that’s a “silver lining”, of sorts, to this sorry affair… ;)
(Not really a biggie, one can always refer to a previous comment without utilising the “reply” function).
Hey John. Good to see you around. :D
*Please* do not disable threaded comments.
Blogs become far less readable without this facility.
So it seems that Kirby is promoting a false dichotomy: women can either push themselves to succeed, or they can recognize that they are systemically disadvantaged by male privilege, but they cannot do both.
As a counterexample, it was the cataloging and study of sexist discrimination, and male privilege, which led to the push for and passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was an effective push by organized women to facilitate their own success.
It’s just not realistic to imagine that there’s a dichotomy here. In fact, recognizing male privilege can be an impetus to do something about it.
Paula Kirby is a completely lovely person that I greatly admire, but her position on this is beyond naivete.
I strongly disagree. I think that Kirby’s position is much more perceptive, thoughtful, constructive, and realistic than yours –and Watson’s.
Miranda, this Justicar character probably runs amok in part because he thinks you agree with him. If you find anything objectionable, you might want to let him know. I agree human psychology shouldn’t have to be this way, but people do take their cues from those they regard as peers.
Or you could read the comments before you go around telling Miranda to have a conversation she and I already had. Right here in this very comment section. Under the auspices of Ophelia Benson’s rhetorical and stupid question to me.
I run “amok” on my blog, a fact that Miranda seems to understand is my right, and over which she has no control. To the extent that I post here, I have been reasonably courteous to the format, she wants to foster.
You have a fascinating life – what with going around telling people how they should get on with the business of living their lives, dealing with people, managing their blogs . . . but let’s never let your track record of being wrong get in the way; after all, one should admire the kind of consistency you bring to failing to appreciate the facts lain before you.
Pointing out that you take your cues from your environment, and letting Miranda know that she can influence that if she wants to, is not the same as telling her what she must do.
I note your overreaction.
You can prattle on as long as you’d like. Nothing rescues from the fact that she and I have publicly had this discussion once already. Oddly enough, it came incident to a busybody from a different blog who can’t seem to manage to not bring irrelevant information from one place to another just to, you know, have something to talk about.
Pointing out that the discussion has been had here, publicly, handily dissolves your entire point there. But I’m sure she’ll appreciate knowing that she has some ability to set the tone of her own blog; mighty gracious of you to point it out to her. You know, with that PhD of hers, I’m sure being able to edit out the chaff would be an onerous burden with your help. =^_^=
To recapitulate:
You: Miranda should consider doing x because of y
Me: she already has, all without your telling her to do it.
You: you’re overreacting!
Me: damn, I got served.
You are overreacting. Calm down.
Am I alone in thinking that Rebecca Watson and those attempting to boycott Dawkins are misunderstanding their relative importance to the atheist movement. Any event organiser would remove Watson in favor of Dawkins without a seconds consideration. I think they may be mistaking their loyal followers for mainstream support. If event organisers began to feel like having both Watson and Dawkins at the same event would be problematic, they will drop Watson. Apart from those of us who follow this community very closely, most people won’t have a clue who Watson is.
This incidentally, is not a comparison of the relative worth of Watson’s vs Dawkin’s work. It is simply the state of affairs. I would be concerned for Watson that this might backfire on her. Not that that would be wholely undeserved, the boycotting of Dawkins is a massive overreaction and looks more like a wounded ego than a conciensious move. That said, Dawkins could stand to make it clear he has no personal issue with RW. It sounded from his comments like he didn’t even know who she was. He was unnecessarily harsh, though I suspect that if he admits as much now, it will be taken as an ommision of general guilt on his part for expressing the view he did. I think that would do more harm than good and would only encourage this kind of villification of dissent in the future.
Well said.
As I have missed most of this issue, I am confused… could somebody polish the issue a bit, please?
We are debating if an unmannerly invitation for a coffee (with a reasonably interpretation of a sexual innuendo) is considered a sexual assault? I this really is this case, that I cannot hangout with your guys anymore… I just couldn’t live with the controversy that I demand the religious community to acquire thicker skins and criticize the usage of a personal outrage as a weapon, but at the same time, think that the rest of us are exempt. I seriously thought we were better than this…
No, we are not. We are observing this:
– a woman quietly turns down a proposition, and mildly suggests that cornering a woman at 4am in an isolated spot is not a good idea if you don’t want to seem creepy.
- internets goes ARRGHWARRGARBLE, NO WAE SHE MUST NOT SAY THAT!!! SHE SAYS ALL MENZ R RAEPISTS!!!
Roughly comparable to “hey, I don’t believe in god” HOW DARE YOU VILE ATHIEST CHILDREN COUD HEER U!!elebenty!! ROT IN HELL SCUM!
Some messages can’t be heard, no matter how mildly they’re put.
It may have escaped your attention that if it had been left at that, then there would have been no ‘hysterics’, as it were.
But Rebecca went on to abuse her position of power as a speaker to identify *by name* & defame** a feminist audience-member by a concocted association with supposed potential rapist-sympathisers!
It is this abuse of power toward which the righteous indication is aimed.
(Or at least my indignation and utter outrage is.)
And, subsequently, Rebecca rashly claimed that the hapless and helpless audience-member had right of redress to this defamation in a Q&A session. Another clear abuse of power from supposed feminist against a female.
I am on the side of the defamed feminist, and against the self-serving and entirely unskeptical and anti-feminist stance of Ms. Watson.
_______
** And I mean in both senses of the term.
Nah.
Maybe you have all already seen this, but I just found it and think it’s awesome so I thought I’d spread it:
http://skepchick.org/2006/04/a-very-heretical-easter/
I take that as encouraging.
Encouraging that Rebecca concluded that she made an error by one of her previous sexist remarks.
Encouraging that Rebecca may be en guarde against further infringements brought about by her flagrant sexism.
Encouraging that Rebecca may understand that this whole brouhaha may be about a repeat exercise of her inadvertent sense of privilege & power is not about Rebecca.
It is not against those feminists who choose to call her out on her inconsistent calls for gender expression.
Rebecca apologised for her prior behaviour in a most forthright fashion.
She deserves “props” for that behaviour.
She will deserve even more profound “props” when she apologises for her clear & profound libel against Stef.