Watson’s World and Two Models of Communication

[rug]

May 18, 2013
Ronald A. Lindsay
Ronald A. Lindsay is president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry. He received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Georgetown University and his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law. He has been described both as a lawyer masquerading as a philosopher and as a philosopher pretending to be a lawyer. Both statements may be true. One undisputed fact: He is the author of Future Bioethics: Overcoming Taboos, Myths, and Dogmas (2008).

Rebecca Watson inhabits an alternate universe. At least that is the most charitable explanation I can provide for her recent smear. Watson has posted comments on my opening talk at Women in Secularism 2. It may be the most intellectually dishonest piece of writing since the last communique issued by North Korea.

Her distortions begin with her second paragraph, when she states that “Lindsay spends a good deal of time arguing against the idea that feminism as a movement has no significant internal disagreements.” I expended about 200 words out of a 2,420 word text posing the question about whether there are significant divisions within feminism. In other words, I spent 90% of the time talking about other topics. The next time Watson asks me for a “good deal” of my drink, I will leave her an ice cube.

Second, she says she has never heard anyone take the position that there are currently no significant divisions within feminism, which I assume is fairly translated as no divisions worth debating. Yet Watson is aware that just a short time ago, the organization Secular Woman rejected the Open Letter that was endorsed by most leaders of secular organizations, in part because it implied that there was a legitimate ongoing debate about the meaning of feminism. The Secular Woman response to the Open Letter states, in pertinent part:

“It is confusing, therefore, that this same letter suggests that a significant problem with online communication is centered on the ‘debate’ about the ‘appropriate way to interpret feminism.’ At Secular Woman, the principle that ‘feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression’ (Hooks, 2000, p. viii) is taken as a given, and not a topic for debate.”

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/watsons_world_and_two_models_of_communication/

A curious writing on the second day of the conference.

http://www.womeninsecularism.org/

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. It is very strange for the CEO and president of the organising group to insult an attendee like that

It even ends up as the first article on the CFI homepage. So the CFI's most 'important' message, at this time, seems to be "secularist Rebecca Watson lives in an alternate universe, has smeared our male CEO, is intellectually dishonest, and comparable to North Korean propaganda. Welcome to our Women in Secularism conference."

I think Lindsay has really screwed the pooch. First, his opening speech for the conference came across to many attendees as "the CFI is still going to argue with any women saying they have problems in the secularist movement", and then, when criticised for that in a temperate matter, he has descended to name-calling, using his organisation as a platform. That a comment on the blog says he personally welcomed to the conference Justin Vacula - a man who has made his mission to annoy and harass as many women in the movement as possible - just makes it look like he wants to rub in the non-welcome he gave to the majority of attendees - women, unsurprisingly.