Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

Atheism, secularism & freethought etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

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

#1841  Postby HughMcB » Jul 27, 2011 3:00 pm

Don't pick on us, we're fucking poor. :lol:

I'm surprised you get coffee at all.
"So we're just done with phrasing?"
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19113
Age: 37
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

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

#1842  Postby Charlou » Jul 27, 2011 3:01 pm

All this innuendo is doing me in :naughty2:
User avatar
Charlou
 
Posts: 1071

Print view this post

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

#1843  Postby horacerumpole » Jul 27, 2011 3:20 pm

I found her latest video to be very sarcastic and arrogant.

Plus, anyone care to list the ways her story about what happened that fateful night at the hotel has changed? [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m1sm8z7i0I[/youtube]

The first thing I noticed is that now she characterizes the incident as the elevator guy "cornering" her in the elevator. To me, that changes the analysis a lot. Cornering implies that he blocked her in, or drove her into a corner or limited her movement in some way. That's a huge change in the fact pattern.

Also - she notes that she told this guy, specifically, that she did not want to be "hit on." That, too, appears to be new. Previously, my understanding was that she did not talk to this guy before. He had been at the conference and in the bar at the hotel, but they hadn't spoken.

Oh - and, does anyone else see some dramatic body language here? Watch her eyes. When she talks about certain parts of the story, we see her glancing to her right, and to her right and up. At other parts of the story (mainly when she is talking about the emails and nastygrams she has received), she is glancing to her left. Glancing to the left indicates "remembering" something. Glancing to the right indicates "imagining" something, generally speaking. One of the things people look at when they try to ferret out deception is repeated upward glances to the person's right. Curious.
Last edited by horacerumpole on Jul 27, 2011 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"There is not a court in Heaven or Earth...where Horace Rumpole is not ready and willing to appear. On the Day of Judgment I shall probably be up on my hind legs putting a few impertinent questions to the prosecutor."
User avatar
horacerumpole
 
Name: Horace Rumpole
Posts: 1933
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

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

#1844  Postby Charlou » Jul 27, 2011 3:29 pm

Ayep, I got the impression that she's infatuated with her own bullshit.
User avatar
Charlou
 
Posts: 1071

Print view this post

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

#1845  Postby horacerumpole » Jul 27, 2011 3:39 pm

Let me add that at her website - Skepchick.org - I posted polite, non-offensive opinions on her blog entries regarding this matter. They were under the name horacerumpole there as well. She has deleted my registration with skepchick.org. LOL. I laughed out loud when I saw that. Check out the posts here: http://skepchick.org/2011/07/dawkins-overflow-thread/

My account was deactivated with Skepchick.org for those posts. I tried to reactivate the name by registering it. I entered horacerumpole as the username and it sent me an activation email to my email address again. I tried to log on and it said - "You attempted to access the "Skepchick" dashboard, but you do not currently have privileges on this site. If you believe you should be able to access the "Skepchick" dashboard, please contact your network administrator."

Apparently, that's how Skepchick operates - the bastion of skepticism and rational thought - banning members who express politely worded, albeit contrary, opinions.

[shakes head...]

EDIT: to be fair - I just re-registered the name, and posted an inquiry on the blog entry where she posts her most recent video.

SECOND EDIT: showing her true colors, Skepchick just deleted my account again. Here is the latest blog - http://skepchick.org/2011/07/update-plu ... 29#respond - I think I posted 2 comments. You can see them there.

Here are the offending posts:


horacerumpole
07.27.2011
LOG IN TO REPLY

I wanted to ask you, Skepchick, if being “cornered” was part of the original story, or is that something you added now? I went back and watched your original video, and read your early blog posts about it. There was no mention of the elevator guy “cornering me” in the elevator. You had previously said he got into the elevator with you, and then said, “don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you interesting…” or words to that effect.

To me, being cornered is quite a significant factual change.

Moreover, you had previously stated that you hadn’t talked to this fellow before. He was at the convention, and in the bar, but you hadn’t talked to him. Now, however, you, in not so many words, suggest that you had told him that you did not want to be hit on. Did you tell him that? If so, then you had spoken to him previously, yes? If not, how was he informed of this?



horacerumpole
07.27.2011
LOG IN TO REPLY

Well, yeah, because etymology is one thing, and meaning is another.



This got my account de-registered from Skepchick AGAIN!

LOLz!

If anyone cares to - you might inquire why horacerumpole's account was de-registered. Was it for daring to express an opinion that actually casts some doubt on her claims?

Dopey posts from men - allowed. Post something that critiques her thoughtfully, and I'm de-registered.
Last edited by horacerumpole on Jul 27, 2011 4:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"There is not a court in Heaven or Earth...where Horace Rumpole is not ready and willing to appear. On the Day of Judgment I shall probably be up on my hind legs putting a few impertinent questions to the prosecutor."
User avatar
horacerumpole
 
Name: Horace Rumpole
Posts: 1933
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

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

#1846  Postby Corneel » Jul 27, 2011 3:40 pm

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:No, PZ did not liken the incident to elevator rape. He mentioned elevator rape after Dawkins claimed it was impossible to be assaulted in an elevator because they stop (durrr) and that the existence of elevator rape may be a reason some women are uncomfortable being propositioned in elevators.

It's becoming more and more clear my feelings are of absolutely no value unless the person whose actions induce those feelings can experience them from my perspective. If what they do wouldn't make them comfortable, I just need to get the fuck over it. Gotcha.

Well that depends. Is the discomfort felt in proportion with the actual risk? If not, then maybe, yes, you should get over it.

For the elevator incident:
I got this from the first hit on google on "rape hotel elevator". Not surprisingly it came about because of this controversy. It gives some good reasons on why rape or assault in a hotel elevator would be very unlikely.

So maybe people that feel discomfort at this should reevaluate their ideas about this and the origin of them. I think it has more to do with imagery from notably sexist media such as pr0n, as any real basis in reality.
"Damn it! Why am I arguing shit on the internet again!?"
"'cuz sometimes you just need a cumshot of stupid to the face?"

(from Something Positive)

The best movie theme ever

Ceterum censeo Praesidem Anguimanum esse demovendum
User avatar
Corneel
 
Posts: 1754
Age: 50
Male

Country: Mali
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

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

#1847  Postby horacerumpole » Jul 27, 2011 3:56 pm

I would add that I don't think Dawkins said it would be impossible to be raped in an elevator. He said that nothing happened in the elevator, and he's right about that. It's not impossible to be raped in a singles bar, and it's probably happened at some point. But, for a woman to take being hit on in a singles bar and make that about sexual objectification and post videos about it as if it is emblematic of male sexism and privilege, we might suggest that she "get over it" and feel comfortable in doing so.
"There is not a court in Heaven or Earth...where Horace Rumpole is not ready and willing to appear. On the Day of Judgment I shall probably be up on my hind legs putting a few impertinent questions to the prosecutor."
User avatar
horacerumpole
 
Name: Horace Rumpole
Posts: 1933
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

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

#1848  Postby Charlou » Jul 27, 2011 3:58 pm

Corneel wrote:Well that depends. Is the discomfort felt in proportion with the actual risk? If not, then maybe, yes, you should get over it.

Yup.
Wtf is it with this female-as-victim approach to feminism...this appeal to make exceptions based on femininity, while espousing feminist demands of equality? If one wants equal treatment, lead the way ... not by playing a victim*, but by treating others equally.

*I've said it before .. RD was right - most of us don't know what real misogynist victimisation is ... and thank fuck.
User avatar
Charlou
 
Posts: 1071

Print view this post

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

#1849  Postby stijndeloose » Jul 27, 2011 4:12 pm

If anyone cares to - you might inquire why horacerumpole's account was de-registered. Was it for daring to express an opinion that actually casts some doubt on her claims?


She claims it was for misrepresentations. That was the official reason, anyway...

ETA: Quote:

Rebecca Watson wrote:OK, you’re done misrepresenting shit to suit your own needs. Bye.
Image
Fallible wrote:Don't bacon picnic.
User avatar
stijndeloose
Banned User
 
Name: Stdlnjo
Posts: 18554
Age: 41
Male

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

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

#1850  Postby horacerumpole » Jul 27, 2011 4:27 pm

stijndeloose wrote:
If anyone cares to - you might inquire why horacerumpole's account was de-registered. Was it for daring to express an opinion that actually casts some doubt on her claims?


She claims it was for misrepresentations. That was the official reason, anyway...


LOL - well, I would be very interested to know what I wrote that she claims is false. I will tell you and anyone who cares to listen that I did not intend to misrepresent anything. If I was "wrong" about something, then the normal way to address that is to say, "hey buddy, you're wrong and here's why: ________" I was unaware that misstatements of fact would warrant de-registration and not even being warned or notified of the reason.

I was never notified that she felt I misrepresented something. EDIT: I stand corrected - she replied to one of my posts accusing me of misrepresenting, as noted above (thanks to whoever found that). I have since demonstrated, however, that I did not misrepresent anything. I have the video evidence to prove it.

I created another account and posted this:


rumpoleofthebailey
07.27.2011
REPLY

Your comment is awaiting approval.
FYI to anyone reading this – horacerumpole’s registration with Skepchick.org was deleted by the managers of this website. That is, of course, their right, and they owe no one a registration here.

That being said, Skepchick bills itself to be an advocate of skepticism, rationalism and freethought. It would be one thing if I had written scurrilous, profane, defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, hateful or illegal material. But, I did not do that. I was participating in the discussion here, staying on topic, and posting in a respectful, non-offensive manner.

Apparently, the content of the posts were not of the kind that would allow Skepchick to ridicule them. So, rather than answer or respond to the posts, and engage in discussion, the website deactivated my registration.

I will not return after this post, because I won’t post where the owners do not want me to post. But, I want it known the kind of website this is, and apparently the kind of person Skepchick is.

Let’s see how long this post stays up.


She's showing herself to be a fraud and a huckster in the highest degree. Misrepresentations? Let's here her answer on the "being cornered" allegation that she now makes. Elevator guy now "cornered" her - that sounds like a criminal offense, actually, or might come very close to being the offense of assault, or menacing.

Anyone can read my posts there at skepchick.org - they are on the "Dawkins overflow" thread and the the original Dawkins thread. I defy anyone to point out a "misrepresenation." And, I would ask anyone whether deletion of an account is even the appropriate response on a freethinking, rationalist website for making an incorrect statement.

Skepchick presumes to know a lot about what other people's intentions are. She knows for a fact that Elevator Guy wanted her sexually. She knows for a fact that he wasn't being nice, but was hitting on her. She knows for a fact that I intended to make a false statement (misrepresentation). She's apparently a mind reader.

Well - I tell you - it's no wonder she limited her latest response to sarcastic and snide sneering....
Last edited by horacerumpole on Jul 27, 2011 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"There is not a court in Heaven or Earth...where Horace Rumpole is not ready and willing to appear. On the Day of Judgment I shall probably be up on my hind legs putting a few impertinent questions to the prosecutor."
User avatar
horacerumpole
 
Name: Horace Rumpole
Posts: 1933
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

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

#1851  Postby horacerumpole » Jul 27, 2011 4:41 pm

stijndeloose wrote:
If anyone cares to - you might inquire why horacerumpole's account was de-registered. Was it for daring to express an opinion that actually casts some doubt on her claims?


She claims it was for misrepresentations. That was the official reason, anyway...

ETA: Quote:

Rebecca Watson wrote:OK, you’re done misrepresenting shit to suit your own needs. Bye.


Thank you! I hadn't seen that. I apparently struck a nerve.

Here's the exchange:


horacerumpole
07.20.2011
REPLY

I wonder – at the conference where Skepchick was on the panel with AronRa and Dawkins, the evening prior to the Elevatorgate incident, Skepchick laughed heartily at the “hilarious” death threats and hate mail that Dawkins receives by the ream.

I wonder…why are her emails to be taken seriously and we are to be “uncomfortable” about them, and see them as grossly improper, when emails to Dawkins threatening him are “hilarious.” She even made one blurb from one of the threats to Dawkins her cell phone ringtone.

Huh – guess outrage only applies to women.


Rebecca Watson
07.20.2011
REPLY

OK, you’re done misrepresenting shit to suit your own needs. Bye.


I would respond - if permitted to - by showing the following video, and saying to click to about 11 minutes in, maybe a few seconds earlier - and hear her laugh about the threats leveled against Dawkins, and she calls them "hilarious." She sets one as her "ringtone" and it goes off in supermarkets saying "you suck!" - of course, Dawkins threats include death, hell and all sorts of things. The threats against Watson, of course according to Watson, are much worse, and deserve all of our attention and sympathy.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W014KhaRtik[/youtube]

And, she wants to talk about misrepresentations, when she tells a story in her first video about a polite come on in an elevator, and now changes it to "being cornered" in the elevator.

In case it never gets posted, here is my response to her assertion:

rumpoleofthebailey
07.27.2011
REPLY

Your comment is awaiting approval.
Just saw this – there was no misrepresentation.

Look – 11 minutes in – you call Dawkins’ hate mail “hilarious.” You know -the hate mail where he gets threats too. They’re hilarious. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W014KhaRtik

And, you laugh about it – you made it your cell phone ring – you’re walking through the grocery store and suddenly your purse goes “you suck!” – you know a piece of the hate mail where someone says Dawkins should die, and rot in hell…that kind of thing.


Again - I was polite and to the point. No sexism. No misogyny. Well, unless Watson's definition of "misogyny" means that nobody disagrees with her, or holds her to her own words.
"There is not a court in Heaven or Earth...where Horace Rumpole is not ready and willing to appear. On the Day of Judgment I shall probably be up on my hind legs putting a few impertinent questions to the prosecutor."
User avatar
horacerumpole
 
Name: Horace Rumpole
Posts: 1933
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

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

#1852  Postby stijndeloose » Jul 27, 2011 4:47 pm

She does seem to have a rather curious definition of 'misogyny'. :smug:
Image
Fallible wrote:Don't bacon picnic.
User avatar
stijndeloose
Banned User
 
Name: Stdlnjo
Posts: 18554
Age: 41
Male

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

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

#1853  Postby MattHunX » Jul 27, 2011 5:03 pm

Just dropping in for another laugh.

horacerumpole :cheers:

Nice posts! :cheers:
User avatar
MattHunX
 
Posts: 10947

Print view this post

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

#1854  Postby HughMcB » Jul 27, 2011 5:30 pm

How is asking a question regarding discontinuity of statements "misrepresenting"? Highly rational. :roll:

edit: ah I see the exchange now, still can't see the misrepresentation though.
"So we're just done with phrasing?"
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19113
Age: 37
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

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

#1855  Postby stijndeloose » Jul 27, 2011 5:36 pm

I can't see it either. It'd have helped if she'd actually provide evidence for her claim. She didn't even attempt to.
Image
Fallible wrote:Don't bacon picnic.
User avatar
stijndeloose
Banned User
 
Name: Stdlnjo
Posts: 18554
Age: 41
Male

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

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

#1856  Postby HughMcB » Jul 27, 2011 5:41 pm

What gets me is (whether she is right or wrong) she has displayed none of the rationality she may profess and indeed makes her notoriety from.
"So we're just done with phrasing?"
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19113
Age: 37
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

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

#1857  Postby cherries » Jul 27, 2011 5:49 pm

maybe someone should invite her here?
"Most books on witchcraft will tell you that witches work naked.
This is because most books on witchcraft were written by men."
-Terry Pratchett / Neil Gaiman




A theists for Conservation
User avatar
cherries
 
Posts: 6834
Age: 58
Female

Country: deutschelande
Germany (de)
Print view this post

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

#1858  Postby stijndeloose » Jul 27, 2011 5:51 pm

YES! That'd be cool. :nod:
Image
Fallible wrote:Don't bacon picnic.
User avatar
stijndeloose
Banned User
 
Name: Stdlnjo
Posts: 18554
Age: 41
Male

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

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

#1859  Postby HughMcB » Jul 27, 2011 5:56 pm

By all means, my guess is it'll last about ten minutes though.
"So we're just done with phrasing?"
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19113
Age: 37
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

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

#1860  Postby cherries » Jul 27, 2011 6:00 pm

right,will do,just if horacerumpole here had his say i think she should have the chance too,if she accepts is up to her :)
"Most books on witchcraft will tell you that witches work naked.
This is because most books on witchcraft were written by men."
-Terry Pratchett / Neil Gaiman




A theists for Conservation
User avatar
cherries
 
Posts: 6834
Age: 58
Female

Country: deutschelande
Germany (de)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Nontheism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 0 guests