Myers & Watson in 2010, behaving like "exemplary feminists"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OhbLDFeE4w[/youtube]

Why would one expect a Professor of Biology to be championing feminist causes? - I mean he would know about human evolution and take a balanced view, I would have thought.

Shantanu wrote:Why would one expect a Professor of Biology to be championing feminist causes? - I mean he would know about human evolution and take a balanced view, I would have thought.

Expect?

Well no, you wouldn't expect it. Particularly from a Professor of Biology who considers himself a rationalist and sceptic.

It's the stance he claims to take, however.

Pulsar wrote:Myers & Watson in 2010, behaving like "exemplary feminists"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OhbLDFeE4w[/youtube]

Well that was “mind” blowing! Joking is okay and what they were both doing was being done in that spirit, but... and this is an important but, when others do that same type of thing their collective wrath comes down hard and heavy upon them and they both blog incessantly about such rampant sexism and misogyny.

Physician heal... well you know who to heal!

Skinny Puppy wrote:Well that was “mind” blowing! Joking is okay and what they were both doing was being done in that spirit, but... and this is an important but, when others do that same type of thing their collective wrath comes down hard and heavy upon them and they both blog incessantly about such rampant sexism and misogyny.

Yes, but they're allowed to joke, because they're Right, whereas if anyone else does it before proving themselves part of the in-crowd (and therefore also Right) it's at best perpetuating old attitudes even if clearly done with tongue in cheek, and an action likely to show up the perpetrator as being hopelessly Wrong.

Pulsar wrote:Myers & Watson in 2010, behaving like "exemplary feminists"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OhbLDFeE4w[/youtube]

I really don't like the views of either PZ Myers or Rebecca Watson, but I don't think they did anything wrong here. The PZ Myers clip in particular is lacking context, the person on stage was presumably a volunteer and didn't appear to mind a couple of jokes, I don't know whether she was already known by him either. The actual premise about being eaten or getting to mate seems quite relevent to the concept of evolution as well.

Thommo wrote:The actual premise about being eaten or getting to mate seems quite relevent to the concept of evolution as well.

He was using the cards to explain genetic recombination, and thus the sex comments are appropriate in context.

This is why I say you should ignore the trolls at ffb, skeptichicks and A+. Watson tweets.


‘If you have sex with someone that is drunk, they are unable to consent and that is rape.’

When naïve people respond, she pulls a bait and switch.

‘O you know just a bunch of people SO MAD because they are not allowed to have sex with someone who is blotto.’

Drunk/blotto, basically give a vague talk/post/tweet wait for the mugs to walk right into the trap and profit. You can’t argue with these fuckwits as they aren’t interested in honest debate, they are just trying to remain in the public (internet) eye.

Don’t believe me well in another tweet Watson make no attempt to hide it.

‘Now that adsense canned RSS ads, I’m searching for alternatives. I’ve fallen into a black hole of get-rich-quick losers.’

I’m not going to link to any of these tweets because I’m not giving them any clicks as it just what they want.

If people want to comment on the goings on at ffb, skeptichicks and A+. Make sure you do it at another venue so as to not give them what they want, drama and clicks (profit.)

Whether having sex with people who have consumed alcohol is consensual is another matter and worthy of debate just not with them hucksters.

Well, drinking and being drunk are different things.

Imagination Theory wrote:Well, drinking and being drunk are different things.

Exactly. A person who is actually unconscious is not capable of consent. Equally, someone who is stone cold sober - barring other factors - is capable of consent. The problem is not with the extremes of the spectrum but with where exactly one draws the line in between them.

Everyone can tell the difference between noon and midnight. When exactly dusk or dawn occurs is more vague.

Added to this of course is a hookup culture where intoxicants are routinely used with the express intention of lowering one's own inhibitions - whether this is to get over the fear of rejection or to give oneself "permission" to do something a bit "random" - and you have a very confusing situation. Did person A get person B drunk in order to have their wicked way with them? Well, that definitely happens, but did it in this case? Did B get themselves drunk because that is the only way they could say yes to sex without feeling "cheap"? That happens too, but is it what happened? Ultimately, we are left with the - probably hazy and contradictory - recollections of two people.

Obviously, the ideal is a culture where A is secure enough to risk rejection without resorting to the application of "Dutch Courage", where B can say "I quite like sex, actually." whilst sober without shame. A culture where people engage in sexual intercourse rather than creating situations where sex "just happens".

How we get there is anyone's guess.

horacerumpole wrote:At 54:30 http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/37611? ... &out=48:16 - she says that she can't tell us how many times men have touched her in inappropriate ways without my permission at these conferences.

That's a serious indictment. What's the charge, Skepchick? Where were you touched and when and how?

I'm guessing that it would be embarrassing to say "zero."

So: a crowd that will think enough about language to resort to "xir", and go apeshit over calling someone a "pussy" or "cunt" has a leader that doesn't care enough to make a distinction between the levels of intoxication between passed out and kinda tipsy?

It is very fucking important to get this right. Getting it wrong leads to false rape accusations and possibly false rape convictions on one hand and actually date rape on the other.

A recent video, for dead-horse-beating purposes:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKQdJR7F_I[/youtube]

If it doesn't show up, it's at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKQdJR7F_I

I'm still stuck on the "ass-grabbing is currently okay at conferences?" I totally chose the wrong field. No-one has ever grabbed my ass at a conference.

It is rather depressing. PZ Myers, FTB and Skepchick have succeeded in splintering and factionalising the movement in a way I never thought possible. The last time something like this happened, it was RRS, and they failed miserably. Myers and co. are still around. I'm trying to think of all the people they've slimed. Richard Dawkins. Sam Harris. Christopher Hitchens (while his body was not yet cold). Lawrence Krauss. Michael Shermer. Phil Mason (Thunderf00t). Al Stefanelli. If these are the 'bad guys', I don't WANT to be a 'good guy'. Back when I was a regular commenter on Pharyngula, I told PZ Myers' horde of suck-ups that it wouldn't be long until they went after Neil DeGrasse Tyson for something or other.

Matt H wrote:It is rather depressing. PZ Myers, FTB and Skepchick have succeeded in splintering and factionalising the movement in a way I never thought possible. The last time something like this happened, it was RRS, and they failed miserably. Myers and co. are still around. I'm trying to think of all the people they've slimed. Richard Dawkins. Sam Harris. Christopher Hitchens (while his body was not yet cold). Lawrence Krauss. Michael Shermer. Phil Mason (Thunderf00t). Al Stefanelli. If these are the 'bad guys', I don't WANT to be a 'good guy'. Back when I was a regular commenter on Pharyngula, I told PZ Myers' horde of suck-ups that it wouldn't be long until they went after Neil DeGrasse Tyson for something or other.

Have they really Matt? Or are they just seen as an extremist fringe?

Paula wrote:

Matt H wrote:It is rather depressing. PZ Myers, FTB and Skepchick have succeeded in splintering and factionalising the movement in a way I never thought possible. The last time something like this happened, it was RRS, and they failed miserably. Myers and co. are still around. I'm trying to think of all the people they've slimed. Richard Dawkins. Sam Harris. Christopher Hitchens (while his body was not yet cold). Lawrence Krauss. Michael Shermer. Phil Mason (Thunderf00t). Al Stefanelli. If these are the 'bad guys', I don't WANT to be a 'good guy'. Back when I was a regular commenter on Pharyngula, I told PZ Myers' horde of suck-ups that it wouldn't be long until they went after Neil DeGrasse Tyson for something or other.

Have they really Matt? Or are they just seen as an extremist fringe?

Yeah that was an over-reaction on my part. But they do dominate the blogosphere.

Matt H wrote:

Paula wrote:

Matt H wrote:It is rather depressing. PZ Myers, FTB and Skepchick have succeeded in splintering and factionalising the movement in a way I never thought possible. The last time something like this happened, it was RRS, and they failed miserably. Myers and co. are still around. I'm trying to think of all the people they've slimed. Richard Dawkins. Sam Harris. Christopher Hitchens (while his body was not yet cold). Lawrence Krauss. Michael Shermer. Phil Mason (Thunderf00t). Al Stefanelli. If these are the 'bad guys', I don't WANT to be a 'good guy'. Back when I was a regular commenter on Pharyngula, I told PZ Myers' horde of suck-ups that it wouldn't be long until they went after Neil DeGrasse Tyson for something or other.

Have they really Matt? Or are they just seen as an extremist fringe?

Yeah that was an over-reaction on my part. But they do dominate the blogosphere.

If they were being taken seriously by anyone with any credibility I may share your frustration, my only concern is that anyone without much knowledge to the contrary will think they are a fair representation of atheists.

Paula wrote:

Matt H wrote:

Paula wrote:

Matt H wrote:It is rather depressing. PZ Myers, FTB and Skepchick have succeeded in splintering and factionalising the movement in a way I never thought possible. The last time something like this happened, it was RRS, and they failed miserably. Myers and co. are still around. I'm trying to think of all the people they've slimed. Richard Dawkins. Sam Harris. Christopher Hitchens (while his body was not yet cold). Lawrence Krauss. Michael Shermer. Phil Mason (Thunderf00t). Al Stefanelli. If these are the 'bad guys', I don't WANT to be a 'good guy'. Back when I was a regular commenter on Pharyngula, I told PZ Myers' horde of suck-ups that it wouldn't be long until they went after Neil DeGrasse Tyson for something or other.

Have they really Matt? Or are they just seen as an extremist fringe?

Yeah that was an over-reaction on my part. But they do dominate the blogosphere.

If they were being taken seriously by anyone with any credibility I may share your frustration, my only concern is that anyone without much knowledge to the contrary will think they are a fair representation of atheists.

I think you're right that they will probably be seen as a fringe. Dawkins, Harris, Krauss etc will still be among the most noticeable atheists out there. They're still seen as the 'leaders' of the movement. But I'm not that concerned about representation and outside impressions. I'm concerned about what atheists themselves do. Myers is segregating atheists. He's using "us and them" tactics. Either you agree with him, FTB, Rebecca Watson etc, or you're a loathsome, misogynist, rape-apologist MRA. Now they have launched this 'Atheism Plus' thing, because, you know, normal atheism isn't up to standard. I think this is damaging for our movement.

Matt H wrote:

Paula wrote:

Matt H wrote:

Paula wrote:

Have they really Matt? Or are they just seen as an extremist fringe?

Yeah that was an over-reaction on my part. But they do dominate the blogosphere.

If they were being taken seriously by anyone with any credibility I may share your frustration, my only concern is that anyone without much knowledge to the contrary will think they are a fair representation of atheists.

I think you're right that they will probably be seen as a fringe. Dawkins, Harris, Krauss etc will still be among the most noticeable atheists out there. They're still seen as the 'leaders' of the movement. But I'm not that concerned about representation and outside impressions. I'm concerned about what atheists themselves do. Myers is segregating atheists. He's using "us and them" tactics. Either you agree with him, FTB, Rebecca Watson etc, or you're a loathsome, misogynist, rape-apologist MRA. Now they have launched this 'Atheism Plus' thing, because, you know, normal atheism isn't up to standard. I think this is damaging for our movement.

Ah but, Atheism+ if there forum is anything to go by (I am aware that it's meant to be about more than just the forum, I'm just not sure what else it's supposed to be about), it has not been a great success. They have been on the go for approaching 6 months, and contrary to their initial euphoria at a rather large membership count, you are lucky to find more than a dozen members logged on at any one time. It's just not happening the way PZ et al would have liked.