Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

Atheism, secularism & freethought etc.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#7461  Postby Thommo » Dec 22, 2013 11:49 am

This conversation is surreal. :lol:
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26670

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#7462  Postby Regina » Dec 22, 2013 11:53 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Regina wrote:
Let me put it this way: when I mention the name Richard Dawkins to those of my colleagues who are biologists they know who
I am talking about. I severely doubt that Miss Watson is known to any scientist of my acquaintance who is not a member of a certain subset of the English speaking skeptic community

What an interesting analogy that is. But you failed to provide any actual evidence which is what I asked for. Had you done
so then I would have accepted it. But you did not so I have to remain sceptical about your original claim. Furthermore the analogy itself is flawed. It is reasonable to expect other biologists to have heard of Richard Dawkins because he is the most famous biologist today. However when you apply the same criteria to Rebecca you fail to mention the fact that she is not a biologist so is less likely to be known to them. The proper analogy would be to ask other feminists if they have heard of her because she is the most famous feminist today. So your response was both flawed and superfluous. Now I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that it was not a deliberate attempt at misrepresentation on your part but even so I was actually anticipating a better response than that. I seriously expected some evidence. How foolish of me to make such
a presumption. Come on now Reg. You can do better than that

Read more carefully. Becky claims to be a science blogger. If she were well-known outside this tiny subset of the anglophone skeptics world, the scientists outside this miniscule circle would surely know about her?
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15612
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#7463  Postby Scarlett » Dec 22, 2013 11:55 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Scarlett wrote:
Just as puzzling is the notion that there is any question that Reginald did not
want / refused to wear a condom. As is the notion that sarcasm cannot be malice

Saying you are going to wear a condom and actually wearing a condom are not the same thing. You may have missed this but in all the time Reginald was with Rebecca he never once actually put one on while she was patiently waiting for him to do so If he did not want to then he should just have left it at that. He of course wanted to fuck her but she had to be on the pill But that was his fault for assuming she was. He should have left and gone find a woman who was on the pill and fucked her instead. And sarcasm can be malice just not always. I actually did state this but you must have missed it in your rush to remind me. I am grateful but you really did not have to bother Scarlett. But thanks anyway [ wink wink ]


As has been pointed out to you surr, he did NOT assume she was on the pill, he asked her if she was on the pill.

And your defence of her was that she wasn't using malice but sarcasm instead, you seem at least now to acknowledge that they are not mutually exclusive.
User avatar
Scarlett
 
Posts: 16046

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#7464  Postby campermon » Dec 22, 2013 11:56 am

Regina wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Regina wrote:
Let me put it this way: when I mention the name Richard Dawkins to those of my colleagues who are biologists they know who
I am talking about. I severely doubt that Miss Watson is known to any scientist of my acquaintance who is not a member of a certain subset of the English speaking skeptic community

What an interesting analogy that is. But you failed to provide any actual evidence which is what I asked for. Had you done
so then I would have accepted it. But you did not so I have to remain sceptical about your original claim. Furthermore the analogy itself is flawed. It is reasonable to expect other biologists to have heard of Richard Dawkins because he is the most famous biologist today. However when you apply the same criteria to Rebecca you fail to mention the fact that she is not a biologist so is less likely to be known to them. The proper analogy would be to ask other feminists if they have heard of her because she is the most famous feminist today. So your response was both flawed and superfluous. Now I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that it was not a deliberate attempt at misrepresentation on your part but even so I was actually anticipating a better response than that. I seriously expected some evidence. How foolish of me to make such
a presumption. Come on now Reg. You can do better than that

Read more carefully. Becky claims to be a science blogger. If she were well-known outside this tiny subset of the anglophone skeptics world, the scientists outside this miniscule circle would surely know about her?


I can guarantee that nobody I know in RL, except MrsC who is a member here, has heard of Watson.
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17154
Age: 49
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#7465  Postby Scarlett » Dec 22, 2013 11:59 am

surreptitious57 wrote:The video suggests the recounting of an actual event but the way she delivers it has the structure of a comedic monologue except that the punchline was rather weak. This makes me wonder if it was a real event she was referencing or just an imaginary scenario or more likely a combination of the two. But she did commit a couple of howlers : she referred to Reg
as a boy. Now unless he is under eighteen this is wrong. And especially so for a feminist. And that is because of the casual indifference men have when referring to women as girls. It annoys the hell out of feminists and rightly so too. I never call a woman a girl unless I am being ironic. So for Rebecca to call Reg a boy if he was not is something she should not have done Number two was the questioning of his mental state of mind because he did not drink alcohol. Let me explain something here : there is no correlation between mental illness and teetotalism. Conversely there is much between mental illness and alcoholism. So to make a judgement about someone based on one event is completely wrong. Rebecca is not a qualified psychiatrist and so cannot make such pronouncements and it was even worse to do so for comedic effect

However if it was just an imaginary scenario then fair enough. I do not actually mind what she said in the video but I am just referencing it from the point of view of political correctness as regards the use of language which is a big thing for some or many feminists. For example around the use of the word cunt. Some feminist bloggers such as Jadehawk will not engage with you if you use gendered slurs

I also noticed in the video that Rebecca grew her hair which makes her more physically attractive. She also has a sexy voice too. I also liked her when she made the famous remark than began it all back in the day. She was very sexy then. I loved the red hair. But when she appeared next to Richard in Dublin I did not find her sexy at all. Now I hasten to add that her physical appearance has no bearing on my ability to treat her as a human being and not just the personification of lust. I can actually admire a woman for both her beauty and her brains and if the woman in question is not physically attractive to me I can still admire her for her brains. I would be lying if I said that female beauty is not sometime I am partial to but I try very hard not to let my hormones do my thinking for me. That said there is absolutely nothing wrong in finding another human being sexually attractive as long as you do not violate their boundaries in the process of doing so


You've just got a huge crush on her surr :lol:
User avatar
Scarlett
 
Posts: 16046

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#7466  Postby Scarlett » Dec 22, 2013 12:00 pm

campermon wrote:
Regina wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Regina wrote:
Let me put it this way: when I mention the name Richard Dawkins to those of my colleagues who are biologists they know who
I am talking about. I severely doubt that Miss Watson is known to any scientist of my acquaintance who is not a member of a certain subset of the English speaking skeptic community

What an interesting analogy that is. But you failed to provide any actual evidence which is what I asked for. Had you done
so then I would have accepted it. But you did not so I have to remain sceptical about your original claim. Furthermore the analogy itself is flawed. It is reasonable to expect other biologists to have heard of Richard Dawkins because he is the most famous biologist today. However when you apply the same criteria to Rebecca you fail to mention the fact that she is not a biologist so is less likely to be known to them. The proper analogy would be to ask other feminists if they have heard of her because she is the most famous feminist today. So your response was both flawed and superfluous. Now I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that it was not a deliberate attempt at misrepresentation on your part but even so I was actually anticipating a better response than that. I seriously expected some evidence. How foolish of me to make such
a presumption. Come on now Reg. You can do better than that

Read more carefully. Becky claims to be a science blogger. If she were well-known outside this tiny subset of the anglophone skeptics world, the scientists outside this miniscule circle would surely know about her?


I can guarantee that nobody I know in RL, except MrsC who is a member here, has heard of Watson.


No one I know IRL has heard of her. My husband thinks she's a fruit-loop because I've shown him some of her stuff but not another soul :dunno:
User avatar
Scarlett
 
Posts: 16046

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#7467  Postby Regina » Dec 22, 2013 12:04 pm

Scarlett wrote:Let's break this down, it will entail me watching the fucking clip again so you guys owe me :ill:

Seconds in to her "talk" she provides the man in question with the name 'Reginald', this ilicits a giggle from the audience as I'm sure it was intended.

The phone numbers were exchanged and subsequent date took place. RW made it very clear she was intending on getting quite drunk (her joke about ordering everything behind the bar), this was then followed by her first big fail. He ordered water, that was considered a bit "odd", I have no idea who RW associates with on a daily basis but in my world going to a bar and not drinking alcohol is not considered remotely odd, there may be a million and one reasons why someone would choose not to drink alcohol. One of those reasons may, and that is possibly the millionth and first reason, is that they "have some horrific thing in their past that has caused that to happen". Now, am I missing something here? Is that quite possibly the most awful conclusion she could have chosen to titter about? Yes RW, it's fucking hilarious that the guy you're on a date with might be suffering mental health problems due to past trauma, and that such people are "not good date material" :scratch: . But that is by the by as she didn't actually ask him, in her own words, she just "assumes" that's why people don't drink alcohol.

She then waxes lyrical about how he is actually a really nice guy, kind and thoughtful, doesn't drink (funny how that appears to have become a pro when 30 seconds or so beforehand it made him "odd" at best), but this is then put down to the fact that he tells her he's an ex-mormon, it makes sense to her as he has that "mormon look about him" and "several thousand brothers and sisters". I have no idea why his past mormonism has any bearing on the story whatsoever, I can only surmise it has been used as another stick with which to poke at him, there is nothing else in the story that indicates his behaviour was influenced one iota by his past belief system.

She then "gets him back to her apartment" and things become "sexual in nature" resulting in them together in her bed, naked. She's quite pleased that he looks "just as good naked", one wonders what his opinion on her body was or if indeed it'd have been frowned upon if he had commented.

They are then past what she likes to refer to as "the point of no return", I wouldn't have thought that phrase was suitable for an advocate of feminism who I'm sure supports the idea that there is not a point of no return defence when it's referencing rape.

Next is the condom question which appears to be causing some confusion. She rolls over to her bedside table and offers him a condom from an array of different types, this is a perfect chance to get in one of those lovely mature jokes about penis size when she quips that she doesn't want to offer him the magnum if it's not his "deal" and will make him feel "inadequate".

Now this next bit is where surr in particular needs to pay special attention. After the offer of a condom he does indeed ask her if she's on birth control, this in it's self as RW points out is not unheard of and there will be men who will prefer sex without a condom. She uses that horrible patronising tone to say "Aww sweetie, I know it feels better for you, but it feels better for me not to get syphilis". HOWEVER, and this is a big however surr, he apparently then made it very clear that he was in fact willing to wear a condom but that he would prefer her to be further protected from pregnancy by the birth control pill. Al little bit of confusion about why she's not on the pill, choose between her just moving to the city and not having a gyny doctor yet or the fact the she doesn't want to take it because it makes her "crazy", irrelevant really as it's not a requirement for her but does indicate her confused thinking IMO.

Further conversation ensues which results in her saying that he could "just stick the condom on your dick and just fuck me", and here it is surr, according to her he said "I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, I DON'T THINK THAT'S ENOUGH".

Now this is where IMO she starts hitting well below the belt, she calls him an "ex-mormon fucker", bearing in mind his ex-mormonism appears to have only been an issue for her and has had no other bearing on the story as far as I could surmise, that's a cuntish thing to say. She then rattles on about how "he thinks he has super-sperm!", when again there is no indication that he has a large ego at all, quite the contrary in fact, she said initially that he was really nice, kind and thoughtful. She goes as far as to tell him he has "human sperm", now at this juncture I'm pretty convinced she making at least vast chunks of this story up, because if I was him I'd have been out of there, but she is so appealing apparently that he stays, and after some reassurance that she would take the morning-after pill if there was a condom failure he changes his mind. To which the response from RW is "Get the fuck out of my house!". Keep it classy sister :roll:

You deserve the Chill Girl Medal of Mental Staying Power to wade through all that again! :cheers:
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15612
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#7468  Postby campermon » Dec 22, 2013 12:05 pm

Scarlett wrote:
No one I know IRL has heard of her. My husband thinks she's a fruit-loop because I've shown him some of her stuff but not another soul :dunno:


Aye.

Which begs the question - How does she make a living?

:ask:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17154
Age: 49
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#7469  Postby Scarlett » Dec 22, 2013 12:09 pm

Regina wrote:
You deserve the Chill Girl Medal of Mental Staying Power to wade through all that again! :cheers:


:cheers:

I do need a lie down now though, anyone fancy bringing me the Sunday papers and a coffee? :ill:
User avatar
Scarlett
 
Posts: 16046

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#7470  Postby Thommo » Dec 22, 2013 12:11 pm

Scarlett wrote:
Regina wrote:
You deserve the Chill Girl Medal of Mental Staying Power to wade through all that again! :cheers:


:cheers:

I do need a lie down now though, anyone fancy bringing me the Sunday papers and a coffee? :ill:


I've got a spare copy of the Daily Mail you can have.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26670

Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#7471  Postby Scarlett » Dec 22, 2013 12:13 pm

Thommo wrote:
Scarlett wrote:
Regina wrote:
You deserve the Chill Girl Medal of Mental Staying Power to wade through all that again! :cheers:


:cheers:

I do need a lie down now though, anyone fancy bringing me the Sunday papers and a coffee? :ill:


I've got a spare copy of the Daily Mail you can have.


No, you keep it Thommo, it might just make me feel more ill :lol:
User avatar
Scarlett
 
Posts: 16046

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#7472  Postby surreptitious57 » Dec 22, 2013 12:22 pm

I am going to break this down into its smallest constituent part

Reginald only fucks women who are on the pill

Reginald meets Rebecca

Reginald likes Rebecca and wants to fuck her

Rebecca likes Reginald and wants to fuck him

Reginald then discovers Rebecca is not on the pill

What should Reginald do

A : absolutely refuse to fuck Rebecca

B : repeatedly ask if she is on the pill

C : reluctantly agree to fuck her even though she is not on the pill

One of those answers is right and two of those answers are wrong

I will bet my life that everyone reading this knows what the right one is

In fact I know that you all know what the right one is

So what the hell are we arguing about then
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10074

Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#7473  Postby Scarlett » Dec 22, 2013 12:32 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:I am going to break this down into its smallest constituent part

Reginald only fucks women who are on the pill

Reginald meets Rebecca

Reginald likes Rebecca and wants to fuck her

Rebecca likes Reginald and wants to fuck him

Reginald then discovers Rebecca is not on the pill

What should Reginald do

A : absolutely refuse to fuck Rebecca

B : repeatedly ask if she is on the pill

C : reluctantly agree to fuck her even though she is not on the pill

One of those answers is right and two of those answers are wrong

I will bet my life that everyone reading this knows what the right one is

In fact I know that you all know what the right one is

So what the hell are we arguing about then


I'm choosing not to address your post at all surr due to your having left out some very important facts that make answering your question horribly biased against Reginald. I've pointed out those very important facts you continue to miss in a lengthy post above. You appear to be opting for the 'bias confirmation' route in this and I see no point in further discussion with you.

Edit for clarity
User avatar
Scarlett
 
Posts: 16046

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#7474  Postby Thommo » Dec 22, 2013 12:35 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:I am going to break this down into its smallest constituent part

Reginald only fucks women who are on the pill


You don't know that.

surreptitious57 wrote:Reginald meets Rebecca

Reginald likes Rebecca and wants to fuck her


You don't know that either.

surreptitious57 wrote:Rebecca likes Reginald and wants to fuck him

Reginald then discovers Rebecca is not on the pill

What should Reginald do

A : absolutely refuse to fuck Rebecca

B : repeatedly ask if she is on the pill

C : reluctantly agree to fuck her even though she is not on the pill

One of those answers is right and two of those answers are wrong


No. That's a non-exhaustive list containing at least two answers which are definitively neither right or wrong and a third which is just totally irrelevant (B). If he wants, on balance, to have sex without her being on the pill that is up to him to consent to it. If he doesn't want to, that's up to him as well.

surreptitious57 wrote:I will bet my life that everyone reading this knows what the right one is

In fact I know that you all know what the right one is

So what the hell are we arguing about then


I think mostly the fictitious details you keep inserting into the account, for reasons that are not immediately obvious to me.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26670

Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#7475  Postby surreptitious57 » Dec 22, 2013 12:46 pm

Scarlett wrote:
The phone numbers were exchanged and subsequent date took place. RW made it very clear she was intending on getting quite drunk ( her joke about ordering everything behind the bar ) this was then followed by her first big fail. He ordered water, that was considered a bit odd I have no idea who RW associates with on a daily basis but in my world going to a bar and not drinking alcohol is not considered remotely odd there may be a million and one reasons why someone would choose not to drink alcohol One of those reasons may, and that is possibly the millionth and first reason is that they have some horrific thing in their past that has caused that to happen. Now am I missing something here ? Is that quite possibly the most awful conclusion she could have chosen to titter about ? Yes RW, it is fucking hilarious that the guy you are on a date with might be suffering mental health problems due to past trauma and that such people are not good date material. But that is by the by as she did not actually ask him in her own words she just assumes that is why people do not drink alcohol
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10074

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#7476  Postby Regina » Dec 22, 2013 12:58 pm

Thommo wrote:This conversation is surreal. :lol:

Of course. That's were all the fun is to be had. :grin:
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15612
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#7477  Postby surreptitious57 » Dec 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Regina wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Regina wrote:
Let me put it this way: when I mention the name Richard Dawkins to those of my colleagues who are biologists they know who I am talking about. I severely doubt that Miss Watson is known to any scientist of my acquaintance who is not a member of a certain subset of the English speaking skeptic community

What an interesting analogy that is. But you failed to provide any actual evidence which is what I asked for. Had you done
so then I would have accepted it. But you did not so I have to remain sceptical about your original claim. Furthermore the analogy itself is flawed. It is reasonable to expect other biologists to have heard of Richard Dawkins because he is the most famous biologist today. However when you apply the same criteria to Rebecca you fail to mention the fact that she is not a biologist so is less likely to be known to them. The proper analogy would be to ask other feminists if they have heard of her because she is the most famous feminist today. So your response was both flawed and superfluous. Now I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that it was not a deliberate attempt at misrepresentation on your part but even so I was actually anticipating a better response than that. I seriously expected some evidence. How foolish of me to make such
a presumption. Come on now Reg. You can do better than that

Read more carefully. Becky claims to be a science blogger. If she were well known outside this tiny subset
of the anglophone skeptics world the scientists outside this miniscule circle would surely know about her

Rebecca is a feminist who blogs on scientific matters but not absolutely so. I would therefore suggest that it is feminists
who probably are more aware of her than scientists. Though her co blogger Paul Zachary Myers has at the last count over
a hundred thousand readers of his blog and that is an impressive number. I only asked out of curiosity. I was not actually
trying to disprove your claim but as you have failed to provide any evidence for the second time I shall let it go. Though for
me what matters is the quality of the information not the quantity of readership. Being right is better than being popular
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10074

Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#7478  Postby Regina » Dec 22, 2013 1:36 pm

You think having a hundred thousand readers in the English speaking world amounts to being a celebrity that people want to have sex with for that reason? Because that was your original speculation, not the quality of the information.
Moreover, it seems you and I have very different standards as to what numbers make you a famous person.
Being right is better than being popular
:boohoo:
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15612
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#7479  Postby surreptitious57 » Dec 22, 2013 2:01 pm

Regina wrote:
You think having a hundred thousand readers in the English speaking world amounts to being a celebrity that people want to have sex with for that reason ? Because that was your original speculation not the quality of the information. Moreover it seems you and I have very different standards as to what numbers make you a famous person

I have never used the word celebrity to describe Rebecca. I have never suggested that her popularity was a reason for anyone to want to fuck her. I have never speculated on what number makes one famous. Now is that it or do you have any more
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10074

Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#7480  Postby Scarlett » Dec 22, 2013 2:04 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Scarlett wrote:
The phone numbers were exchanged and subsequent date took place. RW made it very clear she was intending on getting quite drunk ( her joke about ordering everything behind the bar ) this was then followed by her first big fail. He ordered water, that was considered a bit odd I have no idea who RW associates with on a daily basis but in my world going to a bar and not drinking alcohol is not considered remotely odd there may be a million and one reasons why someone would choose not to drink alcohol One of those reasons may, and that is possibly the millionth and first reason is that they have some horrific thing in their past that has caused that to happen. Now am I missing something here ? Is that quite possibly the most awful conclusion she could have chosen to titter about ? Yes RW, it is fucking hilarious that the guy you are on a date with might be suffering mental health problems due to past trauma and that such people are not good date material. But that is by the by as she did not actually ask him in her own words she just assumes that is why people do not drink alcohol


Why have you just quoted a part of my post and not even commented? :scratch:
User avatar
Scarlett
 
Posts: 16046

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Nontheism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests