[5hoom]

Why don't you ask Rebecca Watson (co-host of The Skeptics Guide To The Universe) what she thinks of him?

There was an incident at a recent skeptics conference where Watson was accosted & hit on by an attendee in the small hours of the morning while riding an elevator.

She used her podcast & blog to describe the incident, hinting that maybe hitting on an un-escorted female in the middle of the night while the two of you are stuck in an elevator together is a good way to make said female feel vulnerable & uncomfortable.

Well, Dawkins wen't on to have a foaming at the mouth tirade about how she was carrying on like a hypothetical hysterical muslim woman who was all offended by being offered a coffee and that she should just toughen up.

He was rightly slammed by many for this, but the guy sounds like a dick to me.

[edit: in response to reply] I understand his message. I also think he was "foaming at the mouth" and a "dick". I am an atheist. I am also not so besotted by the cult of personality that I can't see past Dawkins contributions & still think he's a dick.

[edit edit: after some thought] On reflection calling Richard Dawkins a "dick" is not the right thing to do. Replace "a dick" with "an insensitive man".

[jemfinch]

There was an incident at a recent skeptics conference where Watson was accosted & hit on by an attendee in the small hours of the morning while riding an elevator.

No, there was an instance where a man asked Watson to his room for coffee, and when she turned him down, he accepted it. No one accosted anyone at any point in that exchange, and that's precisely the point Dawkins and others were making.

[davros]

He was rightly slammed by many for this, but the guy sounds like a dick to me.

Irrelevant, and a logical falacy to boot: if Dawkins is wrong on one thing does not show he is wrong on other things.

[dolphenstein]

That was a case of misinterpreting each other and then raising the level of misinterpretation with each subsequent comment.

[ugh]

He was wrong about that. Humans tend to be wrong from time to time and say stupid things. That’s just how it is. He certainly, however, wasn’t foaming at the mouth or being a dick.

I don’t always like what Dawkins has to say (which, I should add, is perfectly normal – I do feel that way about most people) but I don’t think you can call him arrogant in general. Most of the time he is very polite in what he says.

[microarchitect]

the guy sounds like a dick to me.

As I said below, I think he probably is a sexist, but I wouldn't go so far as calling him a dick. As someone who only recently became a feminist, I think it's easy to make the mistake of thinking that Watson was over-reacting. This is probably what Dawkins thought - which of course makes him a sexist, and unaware of his privileges, but all this, IMHO, still isn't enough to make him a dick.

[5hoom]

You have a fair point, name calling isn't particularly endearing in intelligent conversation.

I suppose the strong language is a response to my feeling that Dawkins did abuse his position in that incident.

I also feel that he is an unnecessarily divisive personality due to the hard line he takes (look at the controversy his name being mentioned on HN has caused amongst a group who I would imagine are sympathetic to his message).

[niete]

His position? He left a comment on a blog....

[emp_]

You can't defy the abundant flaws in religion unless you are a perfect human being.

[logjam]

I see. The parent characterized Dawkins as "arrogant" and "pig headed", and now you've characterized him as "foaming at the mouth", on a "tirade" and a "dick". You've also misstated his argument.

We get it. Many hate his message and because they can't argue coherently against that message, they mostly just call him names.

[DarkShikari]

What about people who agree with his message, but still think he's a dick? Are they not allowed to exist?

Dawkins is an intelligent atheist skeptic, but he's also an incredibly sexist, insensitive ass whom many believe is consistently hurting the cause he claims to promote. You're allowed to think the latter even if you largely agree with his opinions as an atheist skeptic.

[niete]

Richard Dawkins has done more for women that the femiskeptics have ever done. May I quote Abbie Smith:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After Shaftgate, many noticed that Dawkins quit speaking on the issue.

Many put up guesses as to why this happened, and I think the 'why?' is now clear. Dawkins has shown with his actions time, time, time and again, that he is supportive of everyone in science and skepticism. When it became clear that words, discussion, reasoning were useless against what he was up against, he stopped using words, discussion, and reasoning, and kept doing what he do, which is, to 'do':

>The dawkins foundation is going to pay for childcare so moms can attend future cons. Feminist cred reestablished, well played

More twetters:

>Childcare at future TAM to be sponsored by Dawkins Foundation

AWESOME!

ERV translation:

>You all keep throwing your bordello parties and pajama parties and getting drunk all the time and acting like overall jackasses in the name of 'supporting women in skepticism'. Im going to actually support everyone, including women, by providing childcare at future TAMs. flipseveryoneoff

The non-response this move has gotten, the stunned silence from the True Feminists mirrors that of the duped Evangelicals before. Stricken dumb by being too dumb to understand what just happened. Its hysterical.

I wish I could take an ounce of credit for any of this-- providing childcare at meetings is something I have been talking up and down since the Texas Freethought Convention last year. Camp Quest provided 'day camp' for the kids of attendees. That was such a weight off of so many parents, especially single parents, including single moms, shoulders. Furthermore, having low-stress, kid-friendly activities has helped the OKC Atheists grow exponentially-- picnics, trips to zoos and museums, meet-ups at a pizza place instead of a bar, etc. Weve gotten so big we actually had to make a break-off 'secular parenting' group (though all are still welcome if they are doing something cool and you want to tag along).

You want more members?

Have more low-intimidation, social meet-ups. Not every skeptic group has to meet in a pub. Not every meeting needs to be a lecture. Yes, karaoke nights at a bar are my favorite, but something as small as a few 'kid friendly' events, or day-care for day-long events goes a fuckovalong way to generating a warm, welcoming group.

Anyway, I rant all over the place about this, including to Dawkins very recently, but I cant take any credit. Apparently this move has been in the works for a long time, with Camp Quest. Apparently before Twatson fell down and threw a temper tantrum and demanded everyone kiss her invisible boo-boo.

She made her move. A rash decision.

Dawkins made his. Carefully planned for some time.

Check-mate.

-----------------------------------------------------

http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/07/dawkins_coup_de_grace_in...

[DarkShikari]

Richard Dawkins has done more for women that the femiskeptics have ever done.

"Doing things for women" has absolutely nothing to do with feminism. That's like claiming that someone isn't racist because they've "done things for black people", and shows a total lack of understanding of what sexism (or any sort of discrimination) even is.

Just like racism isn't only about black people, feminism isn't only about women, and "doing things for women" does not exonerate you from being sexist any more than having a black friend, or giving money to a historically black school, makes it completely okay to be racist.

[microarchitect]

I see.

I'm not sure you do. I think Dawkins is essentially right about how religion is evil, and I think he's done a great deal for the atheist "movement". At the same, he came off looking like a sexist in the Rebecca Watson fiasco.

The point is, I think his message is correct and important, and yet I think he's probably a sexist. These two are orthogonal attributes.

[JanezStupar]

I have an extremely bad feeling.

Lets suppose that religion is the root of all evil. So the atheist movement goes and in time erases religion from the world. Then what?

I don't think ideas exist in a vacuum. I think that for some types of ideas and ideals they can only be replaced by an idea of the same type.

And I do sense some (disturbing) religious elements in the atheist movement. Single mindedness would be the worst in my opinion.

[niete]

Why would anyone want to hear what Rebecca Watson thinks about anything? She has a herd of rabid dogs on her heels but nothing else worthwhile, as exemplified by the elevator fiasco. Sure, if you looked at ten seconds of her video and nothing else it was pretty reasonable, but context matters and there was a lot of it that the femiskeptics like to ignore.