greycolumbus said:
Many comment how the implied correlation between what he did and the blatant misogyny Watson has recently talked about is at best a bit off-kelter and at worst opportunistic.
I reeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaalllllly think you're being disingenuous by portraying the backlash against Watson as being restricted to that.
Watch the first ten minutes of this speech where she reads some of the e-mails she's gotten. True, I don't know precisely whether those e-mails were sent in response to her YouTube or in response to something she said after that. I also don't give a shit, because it doesn't matter.
Watson's point fell flat right after her initial "dont do that" comment, when the implication and the intent of her anecdote became clear. What Dawkins did wasn't out of line at all, especially for him, though I honestly would have preferred he stayed out of the issue.
Saying that women in the West shouldn't complain about any sexism they experience because their clits aren't being cut off isn't out of line? I beg to differ. Dawkins hasn't been burned stoned to death as an infidel, therefore he shouldn't complain about Rick Perry, right? I don't know what you mean by "especially for him"; disingenuous and straw man points don't suddenly become not those things just because Richard Dawkins is making them.
However, he clearly felt he needed to address the misdirection Watson's rant caused in the online skeptic community's dialogue. I'm not particularly a fan of Dawkins' blunt approach to matters, but I much prefer his honest diatribe to Watson's opportunistic and reductionist sort.
The double standard here is mind-boggling. First off, I'm boggled as to, as you admit, a two-minute digression in the middle of an otherwise benign 8-minute vlog that she clearly didn't even think would erupt as it did could possibly be "opportunistic." Precisely what zeitgiest or phenomenon or anything was she cunningly planning to exploit with that cleverly constructed message, and to what end? Yes, she used it as an anecdote to make a larger point, because it was salient and relevant to the point. Is it the most misogynistic act ever committed by man? Of course not. But Dawkins argues Watson should stop her bitching because it isn't, and
Watson is the reductionist one?
Second, you vindicate Watson's behavior as being motivated by the effect it "caused in the online skeptic community," as if--and I admit I'm not terribly familiar with that community--that justifies what he wrote. I don't understand why an online community is somehow a worthy end that justifies the means, but putting that aside:
Whose fault is it that it blew up? Hers, or the hundreds/thousands? of bloggers, youtubers, twitterrrs, emailers who decided to act like she had asked them cut their balls off?
As things stand however, its an occurrence of irony and should have never been used as a serious point of contention. I perhaps would be much more lenient on her if this whole thing wasn't brought up during the SGU podcast. Sorry, it was simply not the time or place for such matters.
Since I haven't heard the podcast I don't know exactly what you're referring to, but unless the podcast was recorded in Saudi Arabia I have a hard time understanding the point that with her on as a guest there was any matter for which it was not the "time or place." They had her on, presumably to talk about whatever the fuck she wanted to talk about.
And of course, if a few minutes on a podcast are not the time or place, nor a personal YouTube blog, I'm very curious to know what you think the proper time and place is for a women to express aggrievement at feeling unwillingly sexually objectified. Can't have such complaints expressed where it isn't proper.
