Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

Atheism, secularism & freethought etc.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

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

#7521  Postby Skinny Puppy » Dec 24, 2013 6:20 am

Imagination Theory wrote:Being nice stresses me out. :lol: Thank you though. I didn't read everything. I think I need to go to bed. Which know sounds really mean since you can't sleep. Sorry.

And it's not you. I''m stressed out that I can't get across what I mean.


Have one of these IT. :cheers:

Image
User avatar
Skinny Puppy
 
Name: Sherlock Jeffrey Puppy
Posts: 9399
Age: 36
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#7522  Postby stijndeloose » Dec 24, 2013 8:54 am

Imagination Theory wrote:
stijndeloose wrote:
scott1328 wrote:Ever hear of the "Dear Muslima" letter?


Was thinking the same thing!


Actually some people in this very thread said Dawkins, was in the right about that letter. I'm NOT saying that. I'm asking you why it seems like you, as in some of the posters here, post more on the unimportant stuff, less harmful stuff. I'm not saying you shouldn't, or you can't do both. Of course you can, I'm not that stupid or even a remotely saying you guys don't care about sexism or homophobia or anything that hurts people. I'm asking why RW doing stand up gets more posts then something that actually hurts people.


As far as I know, she's not doing standup, so I can't answer that.

Why, is my question. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'll ask again, why do you post more about A+ and RW then things that are actually killing and harming people. I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm just really confused. I used to fall under the spectrum, and I don't get this.


Nicko has already answered this better than I could.
Image
Fallible wrote:Don't bacon picnic.
User avatar
stijndeloose
Banned User
 
Name: Stdlnjo
Posts: 18554
Age: 40
Male

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

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

#7523  Postby Scarlett » Dec 24, 2013 10:05 am

Imagination Theory wrote:I just don't get this. There are world leaders, religious leaders, law makers, policy makers, people who influence law and policy,TV, movies, ads, commercials, music, etc., including in the West, who say women shouldn't go to school, there is no such thing as rape or there is such a thing as legitimate rape, women shouldn't be able to get divorced or have birth control or abortion, women are sluts and whores and on and on, yet none of them gets 376 fucking pages, that is three hundred and seventy six pages. Is it because she is a feminist and you think she is being a hypocrite?

Are you seriously telling me you would posts pages and pages more about a gay lady who is pro LGBT's rights, who did stand up and said "hetero sex is disgusting" then you would Uganda's new anti gay law? That you would post more about a black rights activist who did stand up and talked about crackers and used white stereotypes then you would someone who wanted apartheid again? You think hypocrisy is the worst thing ever? Or why oh why do you guys post more about RW and A+ then you do about real injustice that happens to real people.

Ask yourself, why. Don't you wonder yourselves? Because it is kinda fucked up. RW maybe humiliated one person but just think of one country and just sexism, ignore the rest of the world and racism and homophobia and the like. Think the Congo where women are gang raped and raped more then they aren't. You aren't posting threads angry about the war lords and rapists and the West supporting those war lords. Why? I'm not saying you shouldn't post here, I'm asking why is RW worth all these 376 pages to you, and not saying else? Is it really the hypocrisy?


Don't your friends at A+ say something along the lines of 'just because there are bigger problems that doesn't negate their need or right to whine about their first world problems'?

But I agree with Stijn, Nicko, and Thommo, have said it all.

Imagination Theory wrote:Being nice stresses me out. :lol: Thank you though. I didn't read everything. I think I need to go to bed. Which know sounds really mean since you can't sleep. Sorry.

And it's not you. I''m stressed out that I can't get across what I mean.


I think it's very clear, and you have been answered.
User avatar
Scarlett
 
Posts: 16046

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#7524  Postby SafeAsMilk » Dec 27, 2013 3:16 pm

Imagination Theory wrote:Now I'm really frustrated. :waah: I'm not trying to criticize anyone or anything like that. I'm honestly just puzzled. Is it because of the hypocrisy or...why? I don't know if I'm making sense I don't all the time, now I'm really stressed out. I know it's not your fault, my communication sucks. Sorry. :oops: I was for sure not trying to do a dear muslima. I feel all panicky because you think I think that and I do NOT.

I think it's because in the threads you're talking about, there's nothing to discuss. We all agree that the horrendous abuse of women is bad, there's nothing to add. But bring on one guy who will defend RW to the death no matter what stupid shit she says, now you've got a never-ending argument :awesome:
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 13712
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

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

#7525  Postby SafeAsMilk » Dec 27, 2013 3:42 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
We do not actually know if Reginald cares what Rebecca says about him

Do not you think the possibility should fit somewhere in your perfect picture of RW

No because that scenario is not one that is true.

And you know this because...?

Funny how speculating was totally fine when it was you speculating about Reggie's motivations. I wonder why things are so different now that the shoe's on the other foot?
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 13712
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

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

#7526  Postby Imagination Theory » Dec 29, 2013 1:58 am

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Imagination Theory wrote:Now I'm really frustrated. :waah: I'm not trying to criticize anyone or anything like that. I'm honestly just puzzled. Is it because of the hypocrisy or...why? I don't know if I'm making sense I don't all the time, now I'm really stressed out. I know it's not your fault, my communication sucks. Sorry. :oops: I was for sure not trying to do a dear muslima. I feel all panicky because you think I think that and I do NOT.

I think it's because in the threads you're talking about, there's nothing to discuss. We all agree that the horrendous abuse of women is bad, there's nothing to add. But bring on one guy who will defend RW to the death no matter what stupid shit she says, now you've got a never-ending argument :awesome:


:lol: I don't agree with Surr, by the way. I just couldn't imagine a guy saying "ladies, pay for your food" and getting the response "guys, don't do that" got. And there are kkk like sites and mras sites that are way worse then A+ and we don't have 100's of pages on them. And by bad, I mean horrible, even illegal stuff, not just crazy like A+ sometimes is. Is it the hypocrisy? I don't mind a litlle of it, it's not the worst thing.

So was RW, doing stand up or not? I have a shitty laptop with shitty volume and shitty hearing so it will all sound like "bjhjh" to me. But I got my husband to see and he said it was stand up and campermon said it was stand up. :dunno:

Anyway, I was just wondering because I'm not feeling what you guys I think are feeling. All I felt was "oh, humiliating for the guy" and nothing more. I have no cause to be upset or post about it otherwise, so I'm just confused.
Я пью за разоренный дом,
За злую жизнь мою,
За одиночество вдвоем,
И за тебя я пью, -
За ложь меня предавших губ,
За мертвый холод глаз,
За то, что мир жесток и груб,
За то, что Бог не спас.


Андре́евна

אני מתגעגע הביתה
User avatar
Imagination Theory
 
Posts: 5981

Botswana (bw)
Print view this post

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

#7527  Postby Scarlett » Dec 29, 2013 11:04 am

I don't know if you're selectively reading IT but it's been explained. No, it wasn't stand-up, she was attempting the use of humiliation of another human being as comedy but it was a million miles away from stand-up comedy. I think Mr C was being ironic. I reckon there was supposed to be a message in her nasty little anecdote somewhere but no one here can discern what it was.

It was the utter hypocrisy that got to me, and others. The scorn she showed towards this guy, who by her own account had behaved completely responsibly and even "nicely", was awful. If it was a man in RW's position relating a similar anecdote, in the same manner, about a woman you, and a few others, would be outraged. Personally, I'm not arsed whether it was a male, female or vegetable or mineral, her story was a cheap shot, a bit seedy, and totally hypocritical.

You don't mind a little hypocrisy, that's fine. In her position, if she wants to be taken seriously as a feminist worth listening to, she needs to NOT be a hypocrite. What's good for the gander must be good for the goose, otherwise she's going to get a reputation like the screechy red-haired woman or those that call for castration. Slagging off a perfectly reasonable man just because he doesn't want to risk reproducing with her isn't the way forward, bringing up his EX-morminism is just fucking childish.
User avatar
Scarlett
 
Posts: 16046

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#7528  Postby Thommo » Dec 29, 2013 11:09 am

Imagination Theory wrote::lol: I don't agree with Surr, by the way. I just couldn't imagine a guy saying "ladies, pay for your food" and getting the response "guys, don't do that" got.


I don't think you have to imagine - RW is (in principle) a speaker on the topic of women's rights, she got a pretty negative reaction. Look at any thread where Warren Farrell (in principle a speaker on men's rights) is even mentioned, it doesn't matter what he said he gets a negative reaction.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26670

Print view this post

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

#7529  Postby surreptitious57 » Dec 29, 2013 10:57 pm

I now think that the entire premise was wrong. Even if it is purely imaginative it still is. Now I would like to think that the intention was to be ironic rather than malicious though that is not the issue here. Reginald did absolutely nothing wrong at all and if he does exist then it would not be unreasonable for Rebecca to apologise to him for her negative portrayal of him
If he does not exist then it is still wrong because there is nothing at all wrong with the way in which he behaved. There is in contrast much wrong with Rebeccas portrayal of him however which has already been mentioned so no need to repeat it
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)

#7530  Postby WayOfTheDodo » Dec 30, 2013 2:23 pm

Imagination Theory wrote:Is this a comedy routine? Because humiliation for laughs is what a lot of comedy is. RW is being a jerk, I just don't see what's so nasty about it, lots of people are jerks. :dunno:

I'm like meh, who gives a shit. Unless...did she name the super sperm guy?

The point is that she's all about feminism and all that crap. And then she does stuff like this. If she was some random unfunny person, so what. But it's one of the most vocal people out there who are constantly hammering on others for things like this.
User avatar
WayOfTheDodo
 
Name: Raphus Cucullatus
Posts: 1987

Mauritius (mu)
Print view this post

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

#7531  Postby orpheus » Dec 30, 2013 4:41 pm

You know, back in the '80s, a friend of mine was a moderately successful freelance musician here in NYC. In other words, she was making a living, but never really financially secure. Then she landed a gig playing in the pit orchestra for Cats, which was at that time the longest-running musical in Broadway history. A tremendous bit of luck; it gave her steady work for over a decade.

This thread reminds me of that.


:popcorn: (Uncle Orph'sTM popcorn - "still popping after all these years" )
Let's try for peace in 2018, shall we?
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 7274
Age: 55
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

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

#7532  Postby Regina » Dec 30, 2013 4:44 pm

orpheus wrote:You know, back in the '80s, a friend of mine was a moderately successful freelance musician here in NYC. In other words, she was making a living, but never really financially secure. Then she landed a gig playing in the pit orchestra for Cats, which was at that time the longest-running musical in Broadway history. A tremendous bit of luck; it gave her steady work for over a decade.

This thread reminds me of that.


:popcorn: (Uncle Orph'sTM popcorn - "still popping after all these years" )

Where can we queue for the pay check?
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)

#7533  Postby Made of Stars » Dec 30, 2013 11:14 pm

I think Orph's point is that we're the ones buying the tickets to the Watson circus sideshow.
Made of Stars, by Neil deGrasse Tyson and zenpencils

“Be humble for you are made of earth. Be noble for you are made of stars” - Serbian proverb
User avatar
Made of Stars
RS Donator
 
Name: Call me Coco
Posts: 9815
Age: 51
Male

Country: Girt by sea
Australia (au)
Print view this post

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

#7534  Postby Regina » Dec 30, 2013 11:15 pm

Made of Stars wrote:I think Orph's point is that we're the ones buying the tickets to the Watson circus sideshow.

Drat. But we are doing all the work here. :whine:
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)

#7535  Postby Made of Stars » Dec 31, 2013 1:06 am

Regina wrote:
Made of Stars wrote:I think Orph's point is that we're the ones buying the tickets to the Watson circus sideshow.

Drat. But we are doing all the work here. :whine:

It's the perfect business model. :)
Made of Stars, by Neil deGrasse Tyson and zenpencils

“Be humble for you are made of earth. Be noble for you are made of stars” - Serbian proverb
User avatar
Made of Stars
RS Donator
 
Name: Call me Coco
Posts: 9815
Age: 51
Male

Country: Girt by sea
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#7536  Postby Imagination Theory » Dec 31, 2013 2:47 am

Thommo wrote:
Imagination Theory wrote::lol: I don't agree with Surr, by the way. I just couldn't imagine a guy saying "ladies, pay for your food" and getting the response "guys, don't do that" got.


I don't think you have to imagine - RW is (in principle) a speaker on the topic of women's rights, she got a pretty negative reaction. Look at any thread where Warren Farrell (in principle a speaker on men's rights) is even mentioned, it doesn't matter what he said he gets a negative reaction.


But it doesn't get 300 pages worth of stuff, and the MRA's website didn't get another 400 pages worth of angry posts, at most it gets 3 posters pointing what illegal stuff Farrell said says or 11 pages worth of discussion. That's what I'm wondering, why the difference. I know there are guys who say simple stuff like "gals, pay for your drinks" which is as simple as saying "guys don't do that" but the reaction is so different. :scratch: RW really has no power, she can't do much harm, she is nobody.
Я пью за разоренный дом,
За злую жизнь мою,
За одиночество вдвоем,
И за тебя я пью, -
За ложь меня предавших губ,
За мертвый холод глаз,
За то, что мир жесток и груб,
За то, что Бог не спас.


Андре́евна

אני מתגעגע הביתה
User avatar
Imagination Theory
 
Posts: 5981

Botswana (bw)
Print view this post

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

#7537  Postby stijndeloose » Dec 31, 2013 6:31 am

Watson got into the spotlight due to Dawkins's "Dear Muslima" letter. PZ Myers has supported her. She's high profile in online atheist and sceptic circles. Hence.
Image
Fallible wrote:Don't bacon picnic.
User avatar
stijndeloose
Banned User
 
Name: Stdlnjo
Posts: 18554
Age: 40
Male

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

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

#7538  Postby SafeAsMilk » Dec 31, 2013 6:51 am

Imagination Theory wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Imagination Theory wrote:Now I'm really frustrated. :waah: I'm not trying to criticize anyone or anything like that. I'm honestly just puzzled. Is it because of the hypocrisy or...why? I don't know if I'm making sense I don't all the time, now I'm really stressed out. I know it's not your fault, my communication sucks. Sorry. :oops: I was for sure not trying to do a dear muslima. I feel all panicky because you think I think that and I do NOT.

I think it's because in the threads you're talking about, there's nothing to discuss. We all agree that the horrendous abuse of women is bad, there's nothing to add. But bring on one guy who will defend RW to the death no matter what stupid shit she says, now you've got a never-ending argument :awesome:


:lol: I don't agree with Surr, by the way. I just couldn't imagine a guy saying "ladies, pay for your food" and getting the response "guys, don't do that" got.

Of course not. We've gotten to the point of just laughing at those people for the hilarious anachronisms they are. But I appreciate you comparing her to a social dinosaur :smile:

And there are kkk like sites and mras sites that are way worse then A+ and we don't have 100's of pages on them. And by bad, I mean horrible, even illegal stuff, not just crazy like A+ sometimes is. Is it the hypocrisy? I don't mind a litlle of it, it's not the worst thing.

What does the existence of hate sites have anything to do with this? She's made a public spectacle of herself, and the consequence of doing stupid shit in a very public, getting-paid-for-it sort of way is being called out on it :dunno:

So was RW, doing stand up or not? I have a shitty laptop with shitty volume and shitty hearing so it will all sound like "bjhjh" to me. But I got my husband to see and he said it was stand up and campermon said it was stand up. :dunno:

Anyway, I was just wondering because I'm not feeling what you guys I think are feeling. All I felt was "oh, humiliating for the guy" and nothing more. I have no cause to be upset or post about it otherwise, so I'm just confused.

My concern isn't so much for RW, I'm not surprised by the stupid shit she does at this point. What grinds my gears is folks who will defend her to death no matter what stupid shit she says or does. If I didn't know any better, I'd think the only reason they care is because she's a woman. I don't imagine you know any guys getting paid to tell "ladies, pay for your own food" jokes, do you? :smile:
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 13712
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

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

#7539  Postby SafeAsMilk » Dec 31, 2013 7:12 am

Imagination Theory wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Imagination Theory wrote::lol: I don't agree with Surr, by the way. I just couldn't imagine a guy saying "ladies, pay for your food" and getting the response "guys, don't do that" got.


I don't think you have to imagine - RW is (in principle) a speaker on the topic of women's rights, she got a pretty negative reaction. Look at any thread where Warren Farrell (in principle a speaker on men's rights) is even mentioned, it doesn't matter what he said he gets a negative reaction.


But it doesn't get 300 pages worth of stuff, and the MRA's website didn't get another 400 pages worth of angry posts, at most it gets 3 posters pointing what illegal stuff Farrell said says or 11 pages worth of discussion.

As I pointed out before, there isn't much to discuss. Pretty much everybody agrees that those things are bad and ridiculous, yet if RW does something dumb people jump to her defense. This is also besides the fact that the WvD page has been around for a loooong time.

That's what I'm wondering, why the difference. I know there are guys who say simple stuff like "gals, pay for your drinks" which is as simple as saying "guys don't do that" but the reaction is so different. :scratch: RW really has no power, she can't do much harm, she is nobody.

Can I get paid to be a nobody too? :smile:
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 13712
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

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

#7540  Postby Thommo » Dec 31, 2013 1:00 pm

Imagination Theory wrote:But it doesn't get 300 pages worth of stuff, and the MRA's website didn't get another 400 pages worth of angry posts, at most it gets 3 posters pointing what illegal stuff Farrell said says or 11 pages worth of discussion. That's what I'm wondering, why the difference. I know there are guys who say simple stuff like "gals, pay for your drinks" which is as simple as saying "guys don't do that" but the reaction is so different. :scratch: RW really has no power, she can't do much harm, she is nobody.


Warren Farrell has been discussed quite a lot on these boards over the years, I tuned out to it long ago. I think the key difference is that the RW stuff somehow stays more or less confined to this thread. Incidentally what illegal stuff has Farrell said? I seem to have missed that somewhere in the volume of posts on him.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26670

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Nontheism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests