Dawkins, Watson and the elevator ride

[rug]

What are the boundaries of acceptable behaviour between a man and a woman? When does flirting become uncomfortable, unwanted attention? This is the story of how what could have been an intelligent debate about sexism in the sceptic and atheist communities descended into a free for all, name-calling brawl.

----

And so a fairly useful debate about feminism, sexism and appropriate sexual boundaries between men and women descended into all out troll warfare and an attendant witch-hunt to persecute sexists in the atheist community.

Watching this vitriolic in-fighting and vituperative restaging of Salem in a community that associates itself with reason, intelligence and scepticism, was profoundly disappointing. It was almost as disappointing as witnessing a man as supremely intelligent as Dawkins being socially inept and irresponsible in his use of a vulgar metaphor to express his belief that "Elevatorgate" -- as it now has become dubbed -- was trivial.

If there's a lesson to be gleaned from all of this it is that feminists have as much hope of converting misogynists to their cause with public rebuke and shaming, as militant atheists do in converting believers to reason by offending the religious. Finally, the onslaught of misogynist bile spewed at Watson after "Elevatorgate" did nothing to dispel the notion that sexism was absent among male atheists. Instead it bolstered her cause and showed the world that she's part of a reason-based movement that's riddled with chauvinism.

http://mg.co.za/article/2011-09-02-dawkins-watson-and-the-elevator-ride/

[darkstar3]

1. You've already posted the same dreck worded slightly differently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x297001

My response here is the same as it was there.

[rug]

2. Don't be thinskinned. The dateline is, um, tomorrow.

[darkstar3]

9. The thickness of my skin has nothing to do with the repetitive nature of your OPs.

Regardless, the bottom line is that the world has a misogyny problem, and you'll find it everywhere, but nowhere more pronounced than where you find patriarchy. You know all too well where you can find patriarchy, don't you?

[rug]

13. Why don't you search my ops and note their repetitiveness.

And I believe I can answer your question.

Someplace something like this is posted:

"I want to thank you, deeply and implore you to continue your work, and continue to liberate so many of those who were just like me.

"Thank you again, you literally saved my life. Andrew."

http://richarddawkins.net/letters/converts

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

27. The implication that

Dawkins is a patriarch, let alone on the same level as the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, may be one of the most ridiculous false comparisons made on DU in the last month.

[cleanhippie]

3. Didn't you already beat this dead horse? I seem to recall...

Why yes, you did.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=292710&mesg_id=292710

and again

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=297001&mesg_id=297001

[rug]

5. Hmm, didn't I just read that?

Oh, yes, #1.

[cleanhippie]

7. Does that somehow invalidate my claim? Why, no, it doesn't.

[rug]

10. Yes it does. Despite your discomfit, it remains a newsworthy concern.

[darkstar3]

18. The "new" is right there in the word.

There is nothing new here, therefore there is nothing newsworhty.

Now, if you wish discussion, why not kick a thread where it was already started?

[rug]

21. The "new" is yet another perspective on it.

Why are you so uncomfortable with the topic?

[darkstar3]

26. Oh please,

don't mistake my disgust at your gleeful reposting of this overwrought controversy as discomfort with the topic. I am all too familiar with the pervasive nature of misogyny in every group you can name, and I am fully capable of recognizing when someone behaves like a wang. And while you may mistakenly think that Dr. Dawkins is held by his readers in some sort of priestly esteem, that doesn't make it true. I experience no discomfort or cognitive dissonance when I verbally flay him for idiotic behavior. Would that you felt the same about your church leaders.

[laconicsax]

4. This has what to do with religion and theology?

[rug]

6. About as much as sexism and atheism do.

[cleanhippie]

8. So, nothing then?

[rug]

11. i agree atheism hass nothing to do with religion, even considering your obsession.

[darkstar3]

12. So why post about atheism and sexism in forum about religion

if you think they have nothing to do with religion?

Oh, no, wait, I see what you did there. Having trouble reading posts critical of religion, are you? "Don't be thinskinned."

[rug]

14. Precisely.

And I can see through you! :wow:

[darkstar3]

17. Quite a feat for the blind.

[rug]

19. Not really. Even Stevie Wonder can see through you.

[Lost-in-FL]

16. I remember reading about this in the past here in DU

Why is this again in a newspaper? or here?

:shrug:

[rug]

20. You can write the reporter at the link above.

[saras]

22. The ARTICLE is full of shit. Don't know about the people, though Dawkins is famous as an asshole...

from the article:
'A man walks into a lift with a smart, attractive woman. On the way up to his room he propositions her, saying: "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?"

Without knowing the context in which they were uttered, these two lines seem innocuous.' WRONG. At this point, the article has already taken sides - the side of the most aggressive sexists this side of date rape.

Sane responses for the woman in this situation would include "it's $200", or "pull that shit again and I'll report you the the hotel management.", or a demonstration of her concealed carry permit.

Reasonable expectations, simply for safety, would include an introduction first, time for both to check the bonafides of the other's introductory claims, and a meeting in a public place like the hotel lobby or restaurant.


And, in fact, the context wasn't that of strangers at all. It was that of a man who knew perfectly well that the woman had been sexually harassed on an ongoing basis, for her scientific and political opinions. Like so:

"Watson said if she's not getting vitriol she's getting fan mail that is overtly sexual. "Some of these emails do describe in graphic detail what these men would like to do to me sexually. These are from people who agree with me and who think they are complementing me by sending me these emails," Watson said during the panel discussion. "These are from atheists and they don't understand that they're being horribly misogynistic, but they are."

So, while the article itself tries to defend the sexism, I'd agree with the point that the amount of it is intolerable - but then I've got to admit that Dawkins has always struck me as having the personality of an Old Testament prophet.

"After a flood of outrage Dawkins clarifies his bizarre letter to 'Muslima' by saying: "Here's the argument I was making. The man in the elevator didn't physically touch her, didn't attempt to bar her way out of the elevator, didn't even use foul language at her. He spoke some words to her. Just words. She no doubt replied with words. That was that. Words. Only words, and apparently quite polite words at that"

That's the woman who was "propositioned" at an event where the above had just been discussed. Only in his personal fantasy world would ANY proposition at this point be seen by ANYONE with a blood alcohol under 0.25% be seen as anything other than hostile, intimidating, and threatening. To a lot of women, THOSE words in a closed elevator are a threat of rape, NOT an invitation to a date.

"If you wanna be my lover, you gotta get with my friends
Make it last forever friendship never ends
If you wanna be my lover, you have got to give
Taking is too easy, but that's the way it is"

When the Spice Girls can out-think Richard Dawkins, he's obviously out of his field of expertise.

[rug]

24. Righteous rant.

:thumbsup:

[onager]

25. There's a LOT more to this story...

...than Watson vs Dawkins.

It has pitted some of the most outspoken skeptics against each other.

Over at Heathen Hub, Gurdur posted a useful timeline of the whole thing:

http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=1246

Abbie Smith at erv ran 3 different threads on "Elevatorgate." Each thread grew to over 1000 posts very quickly.

Warning to the genteel - Abbie does not censor ANYTHING, which is exactly why I posted this link - if you're so inclined, you can read a lot of different opinions and come to your own conclusions. But also, be prepared to read some utter raving crap:

http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/07/the_monument.php#comments

[dmallind]

28. My God!!! Atheists can be dicks. I must change my opinion then

After all atheism has for many centuries claimed to be the infallible arbiter of deontological morality. Atheism has throughout its history pretended that its supporters are more ethically sound than other people to the point of, in the 21st century, mistrusting non-atheists more than any other minority group, and the very word "atheist", by frequent usage in a supermajority-atheist society, has come to be a synonym for "decent". All this even though atheists are overrepresented in prisons and frequently kill their children out of a desire to please the absence of any gods.

But now I know one of them can excuse boorish but harmless behavior in an elevator I must ashamedly turn in my decoder-ring and find a religion that allows and condones no such sexual misbehavior amongst its champions in any way. Catholicism perhaps? No well-known Catholics would ever proposition women in elevators, or altarboys in vestries for that matter.

Oh wait...

[rug]

31. My, my.

[Goblinmonger]

29. You just can't get enough of this story, can you?

I know, you've heard this before, but it deserves repeating. Your obsession with this is kind of unhealthy.

Dawkins was a sexist dick in this situation. It may be that he is a sexist dick at heart. Don't know; never met him. I do know that he ain't my pope, isn't infallible, and I can disagree with him without being condemned to hell. How's it going with your dick for a pope?

[trotsky]

30. LOL

:rofl:

[rug]

32. I report, you deride.

You do realize this article has nothing to do with a pope. I realize that even though I was never naive enough to enter a minor seminary.

Oh well, it's always amusing to hear you call Dawkins a sexist dick. I'll look for it next time.

[Goblinmonger]

33. So let me get this straight

You stand by the RCC to a fault. You clearly are a devout catholic. And then you call it naive to enter minor seminary? Interesting.

[rug]

35. It was in minor seminaries where many of these abuses occurred.

One of the myriadd reasons why they're nearly extinct.

And yes, in eighth grade I knew better than to enter a school in preparation for the Roman Catholic priesthood. Probably one reason I remain Catholic.

[cleanhippie]

34. SO we have an apparent misogynist, and you have child-raping priests. YOU WIN!!!!

:rofl:

[rug]

36. "We"? I thought you were unorgasnized.

And there's nothing apparent about it.

[cleanhippie]

37. Hey, whatever. You win, hands-down, with your child-raping priests.

No argument whatsoever.