Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on October 26, 2012 at 11:28am

And I was a fan of his too - so disappointing.

Very unprofessional behavior - you would think he would know better than that.

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on October 28, 2012 at 4:41pm

I wonder if Dawkins has been misogynistic in the past, and if so, he needs to be confronted. I have not been aware of any such problems and would be most grateful to anyone who can give me evidence of it. That episode, if true on the part of Dawkins, is a teachable moment. I have seen him be ruthless with believers and know he is capable of cutting remarks. Is he misogynistic? If yes, I will happily take him on. 

By the way, earlier today there was a yellowish streak across the top of my page stating I had been blocked from this site. If that is true, you will not be able to read this message. If it is not true, then has anyone else had such a statement? 

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on November 1, 2012 at 2:28pm

Steph, that is the point, "you would think he would know better than that." He doesn't! And clearly revealed his bigotry in relation to women. He must be held accountable because he is just the top of the heap of men and women who feel women should not complain, not be crybabies, take it on the chin, forgive and forget. These are all nonsense! As long as we continue to do that we will be victims. Language reveals values that we cannot see. As Dawkins spoke judgmentally to SkepChik, we should use language to hold him accountable, as well as let her know we stand with her on her actions. She behaved honorably and PZ appears to have realized it.  

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Simeone on October 26, 2012 at 11:48am

I hope this comment doesn't offend anyone because hurting anyone is not the intent behind my posting it. I'm posting it only because I think it's an interesting point of view--I'm not passing judgment on anyone who might disagree. Having said that, a few years ago I decided that I wasn't going to concern myself with any public figures. I will read what they write and listen to what they say--but I'm not going to care about them as people. I don't look at any politician as a savior and I don't idalize any athletes or singers. I can respect some of their abilities and even some of their thoughts. But unless I really know someone I won't trust them enough to feel any connection beyond the degree of respect I have for what I already know about them. I can only truly respect someone I know well enough to be able to judge their character for myself.  

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on October 26, 2012 at 11:52am

Sexism is just wrong

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Simeone on October 26, 2012 at 12:16pm

Steph, That is so true! The people who still respect Dawkins should stop doing so in light of these comments.

Permalink Reply by Napoleon Bonaparte on October 26, 2012 at 2:07pm

The definition of mysogyny is 'hatred of women' which is unnacceptable.

The word is used loosely and I don't think Dawkins demonstrates a general hatred of women here.

Recent political debate has raised questions about the definition and the possibility of redefinition by at least one publisher.

The new definition could be watered down in line with common usage.

Permalink Reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on November 1, 2012 at 2:14pm

I don't think misogyny should be restricted to cases of fully overt and intentional hatred of women any more than racism should be restricted to fully overt and intentional racial insult or oppression.

Discounting unintentional misogyny is in itself a demonstration of empathy failure. Who needs the validation of a dictionary definition to know this?

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on November 1, 2012 at 2:31pm

Ruth, stated perfectly and I agree 100%. 

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on October 26, 2012 at 2:36pm

well, this has been an interesting exploration; I have read and watched all that is printed, I have written to both Skipchick and Dawkins but have not yet received an answer. I feel I/we deserve to understand what happened and why. As for myself, I have come to a conclusion that comparing one person's suffering with another needs to be challenged. Having one's nose cut off, or clitoris cut away, or locked out of access to education or resources because of gender is always a power issue. When power maintains and perpetuates, it is done through language, attitudes, beliefs, customs, traditions and values. If we want to stamp out racism, sexism, or homophobia, we have to start with language and attitudes. If it is a strange man follows a woman into an elevator and invites her to his room for coffee, he has overstepped his bounds. 
I agree it was a minor judgment call, but Skipchick was proper to use it as an example of her previous lecture and to do it publicly. To do otherwise is playing the game of hint and being coquette with "I've got a secret" and not naming names is immature and nothing changes. Just simple manners should have been the issue, and a valid one. 

As to Dawkins, shame on him! He should know better. I find his response crude and un-helpfull. He allowed a teachable moment slip out of his hands. How else are we going to put a stop to men following unknown women into an elevator and then attacking them, not just offering a friendly invitation. If he had an invitation for her company he should have offered it before the elevator door opened to let them in. 

As to the label, "misogyny" -- it is a bit strong and it is appropriate. Dawkins can be rough at times and in this case he was unwise. 

Permalink Reply by Wyatt on October 26, 2012 at 11:18pm

First, this is not the Salem witch trials. We are at least nominally a rationalist community. Leaping to summary judgements without considering the context, relevant facts, etc. is not what we do. Let cooler heads prevail. Ad hominem attacks do not bear on the truth or falsity of an argument. Have we established beyond reasonable doubt that Dawkins made the comment in question? Second, if he did make this one comment, is this sufficient grounds to demonize the man? In light of his extensive history of campaigning for a universal standard of human rights and considering his fight against the abuse and debasement of women, shall we now disregard all the good he has done and cast stones at this man? Shall we now reduce him to a caricature, a villain, on the basis of one ill-chosen comment? He is only human after all, and human idols make human errors. He is a public figure and is bound to slip up somewhere with the media constantly surveilling his every pen stroke and utterance. Ask yourself, is he now suddenly a woman-hating monster worthy of the Hague? Does that make logical sense? Consider the context. Dawkins has been fighting some truly nasty people for years now as a voice of reason in the cause of women's liberation in Islamic states. Think of him as a battle-hardened veteran soldier who has seen too much tragedy, too much blood. It might be hard for him to see the complaints Ms. Watson put forth as anything close to the horror he has been desperately fighting against. Does that mean that he should be dismissive? No, but it's a very human mistake. And have we bothered to ask what happened to the man in the elevator? Did he ever get a chance to present his account? How does he feel about all of the negative media attention he has received? Will he ever have the confidence to approach a woman again? It could well be that all of this has had a much more damaging impact on that man. Who knows? Only Ms. Watson and that man really know what happened in that elevator. As for Dawkins, he is a brilliant person, a good person. It shows through in his writing, lectures, and interviews. Ask Ayan Hrsi Ali. One comment, if he did indeed make it, is not sufficient to erase all the good he has done.

Permalink Reply by Chris Dodds on October 28, 2012 at 1:01pm

Maybe he was drunk.  I make my worst decisions when I'm drunk, it's why I tried to get circumsized...again.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page