Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Options
1…2021232526…65

Comments

  • Options
    #662
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭gargleblaster


    Nodin wrote: »
    Actually, thats just the reason it should be pointed out.

    It has been pointed out. Ad nauseam. Does pointing it out over and over and over and over again accomplish anything, do you think? If so, please let me know, because I'm at a loss here.

    I find your characterisation of the invite itself to be somewhat hysterical, I might add.

    Ok.

    O I'd say they're more likely to be noticing the presence of the attention hungry, rather than anything else.

    If you take a look around the internet, at the various atheist sites on which people are discussing the issue, you might notice that the majority of men and the vast majority of women seem to have come away with a different impression of the event. Most seem to have acknowledged the inherent sexism demonstrated in the interatcion.


  • Options
    #663
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    gargleblaster wrote: »
    It has been pointed out. Ad nauseam.
    .

    ...actually, it hasn't.
    gargleblaster wrote: »
    If you take a look around the internet, at the various atheist sites on which people are discussing the issue, you might notice that the majority of men and the vast majority of women seem to have come away with a different impression of the event. Most seem to have acknowledged the inherent sexism demonstrated in the interatcion.

    "various atheist sites" located "around the internet". Why thats as quantifiable and measurable as counting the fingers on ones own hand.


  • Options
    #664
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭gargleblaster


    This statement:
    Nodin wrote: »
    ...actually, it hasn't.

    Demonstrates that you haven't bothered to read much at all about this incident, because that allegation has been made in every single online discussion I've read about it. More than once in each discussion, usually.

    "various atheist sites" located "around the internet". Why thats as quantifiable and measurable as counting the fingers on ones own hand.

    What's the point of quanitfying it? There are so many sites you could check out. Should I give you a list? I could do that easily, a list of discussions that started after bloggers made both pro- and con- posts about the alleged incident.


  • Options
    #665
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    gargleblaster wrote: »
    Men and women grow up with a different set of experiences, and their expectations are different.

    You're so close to the core issue with RW's statement. You can't generalize like this - you can't say 'men this' and 'women that'. Every person is an individual, and that's what sexual equality should be about; treat everyone equally regardless of their sex.


  • Options
    #666
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    gargleblaster wrote: »
    Thanks, I appreciate that. :)

    No prob. :)


    I think you're right. At this point in time, many older people are still racist as hell, but they just don't realize it, it's just the way they grew up. Similarly, I think that in the future (hopefully sooner rather than later, but we'll see), the sexist interactions that so many of us face will become more noticeable as future generations are raised without the blinders to it that most people still have.

    I'm not sure I follow you here but I think you were agreeing with the point I was trying to make. So we agree here then.
    Really trying hard to avoid using a particular oft-repeated catchphrase regarding the choice between offering photographic evidence or leaving the vicinity right now. :p

    :D
    All joking aside though, I'm sure you have. And I'm sure it works. Not all women find it offensive, not all notice that it might be disrespectful - and in not all instances is it disrespectful. If a woman is sending out signals that she is interested, then it certainly isn't. Sexual interaction is so complex that it really can't be subjected to a set of hard and fast rules. The best one is like someone already said - just don't be a dick (or ****).


    The main issue here, I think, is the timing and the situation. And even in that situation there are probably many women who would respond favorably, especially if you are, as you put it, so handsome that it's positively embarrassing. *bites tongue (or, the keyboard equivalent)*

    I think we agree here too. (This is going uncharacteristically smoothly)


    Whoa whoa whoa, I did not say that any woman who appreciated such treatment was a desperate loser.

    Apparently you type faster than I edit. Swapped 'losers' for 'attention seekers'. (and cleared up some grammatical errors for good measure).
    I said that a possible reason they might not see it as disrespectful was if they were desperate for attention, as that was at the time the only reason I could think of which would enable the disrespectful treatment to be tolerable. Now that I've thought about it there is another reason, and that is that she simply doesn't see that it is disrespectful. Many Disney cartoons and romantic movies portray disrespectful treatment as being outright romantic, so that really should have been my first guess. Again, mea culpa.

    Ahh, not so smoothly. Could I just point out another possible reason apart from her not seeing that it is disrespectful. That it may in fact not be disrespectful maybe? As you put it yourself above "not all notice that it might be disrespectful - and in not all instances is it disrespectful." (emphasis mine).



    Very fair point. I apologize for having given you that impression, because that's certainly not what I meant.

    I also don't think calling certain behaviors demonstrated by women a possible sign of being desperate for men's approval is anywhere near as bad as calling a sexually promiscuous woman a slut. Just MHO.

    Fair enough, I may have taken you up wrong on that point. You can appreciate how what you said could be taken that way though? How having "Look at her over there desperate for attention." said behind some peoples back would be almost as insulting as "Look at that slut" to them?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #667
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    gargleblaster wrote: »
    This statement:
    Demonstrates that you haven't bothered to read much at all about this incident, because that allegation has been made in every single online discussion I've read about it. More than once in each discussion, usually.
    .

    I was unaware that we were required to take into consideration "every single online discussion" before posting. Obviously your internetz skillz are stronger than mine.
    gargleblaster wrote: »
    What's the point of quanitfying it? There are so many sites you could check out. Should I give you a list? I could do that easily, a list of discussions that started after bloggers made both pro- and con- posts about the alleged incident.

    Well, there wasn't any until you made the claims
    It's nearly unavoidable due to the fact that all over the world, sexism is still all around us. Ralph Linton put it very well - "The last thing a fish would ever notice would be water." It's encouraging that most people at least in the atheist community are noticing it, thanks in part to this one incident.
    If you take a look around the internet, at the various atheist sites on which people are discussing the issue, you might notice that the majority of men and the vast majority of women seem to have come away with a different impression of the event. Most seem to have acknowledged the inherent sexism demonstrated in the interatcion.
    (my bold)

    ..in a rather crude attempt at an unverifiable Argumentum Ad Populum.


  • Options
    #668
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭gargleblaster


    liamw wrote: »
    You're so close to the core issue with RW's statement. You can't generalize like this - you can't say 'men this' and 'women that'. Every person is an individual, and that's what sexual equality should be about; treat everyone equally regardless of their sex.

    We have to make generalities when discussing societal issues. Just as we make generalities when discussing differing religions, or groups of religious sects within a religion, etc. In order to have any meaninglul discussion of the social interactions of these groups on a macro level, you have to. It is of course always a given that there are exceptions.

    There is a very specific interaction that set off this ****storm, which involves the debate over whether it was in any way rude or dismissive of RW's concerns as a woman for a stranger to hit on her at 4 am, alone in an elevator. I'm leaving out the other context at this point (i.e. the subject of her talk and her statement about being tired and wanting to go to bed) as it seems too irresistible of a target for derailment.

    Again, I'm not saying anyone deserves special treatment, just that if you wish to come on to someone, taking their possible or even likely feelings and concerns into consideration beforehand is the decent thing to do if you wish to convey the idea that you think of them as a person deserving of such consideration.


  • Options
    #669
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭gargleblaster


    strobe wrote: »
    Ahh, not so smoothly. Could I just point out another possible reason apart from her not seeing that it is disrespectful. That it may in fact not be disrespectful maybe? As you put it yourself above "not all notice that it might be disrespectful - and in not all instances is it disrespectful." (emphasis mine).

    If so, you'd have to demonstrate how his failure to take the thoughtlessness of his proposition into account before making his request was in some way not rude. Making up all kinds of reasons why we might view his failure to consider how rude if not threatening his request was as unintentionally rude or threatening doesn't change the fact that most women would indeed find it rude and if not downright threatening.

    Basically, to me, failing to consider how that come on would be seen as rude or threatening, and going ahead with the request, shows a very fundamental lack of respect. I'm not saying it was intenionally rude or disrespectful, just that it is almost guaranteed that such a request will be perceived that way by the majority of women.

    As this is a situation where a man was apparently coming on to a woman (bending over backwards here to avoid every possible 'but what if' excuse), it stands to reason that the majority of women's reactions or opinions would dictate whether or not the come on was rude or disrespectful.

    Fair enough, I may have taken you up wrong on that point. You can appreciate how what you said could be taken that way though? How having "Look at her over there desperate for attention." said behind some peoples back would be almost as insulting as "Look at that slut" to them?

    Yes, and again I truly was not intending to point at a group of women and accuse them of being desperate for attention - just presenting that as a possible reason why they'd put up with being treated that way.


  • Options
    #670
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    gargleblaster wrote: »
    Again, I'm not saying anyone deserves special treatment, just that if you wish to come on to someone, taking their possible or even likely feelings and concerns into consideration beforehand is the decent thing to do if you wish to convey the idea that you think of them as a person deserving of such consideration.

    It's possible you haven't read the entire thread, but I agree with this. I also pointed out that this applies to every situation - being considerate - nothing to do with sexism.

    I have no issue with RW stating how she felt in her own personal blog. The manner in which she said it though implied that she was speaking on behalf of 50% of the human race, which is stupid.


  • Options
    #671
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭gargleblaster


    Nodin wrote: »
    I was unaware that we were required to take into consideration "every single online discussion" before posting. Obviously your internetz skillz are stronger than mine.

    Boy strawmen sure are popular around here. Or is it just in this discussion?

    I never said you had to take "every single online discussion" into account. If you will read the rest of the quote, I was qualifying my statement regarding where I'd seen the 'maybe it didn't happen at all!' so-called "argument". If you are going to state that it hasn't happened, might you not want to have some basis for that statement? Or are you limiting your understanding of this discussion to this one thread, on this one forum? I'm not saying that you have to read every blog or forum, just that I actually have read several, and yes, that particular "argument" is being made quite routinely.

    I repeat - that particular "argument" has been raised in every single discussion I've read. If you would like to find a discussion on an atheist site where it wasn't brought up as some kind of point, then please be my guest. However, what I'm wondering is, is what the hell does it prove to speculate that it's all made up?

    As I said before, even if is all a pack of lies, the hypothetical situation is obviously interesting enough to have generated this much discussion, so can we just leave that particular "argument" behind now? Or if not, and you simply must pursue it, please explain why. Thanks in advance.
    ..in a rather crude attempt at an unverifiable Argumentum Ad Populum.

    Ahem. You do realize that when discussing matters such as this, where the issue is whether or not something is socially acceptable, that argumentum ad populum is not fallacious? Apparently not. Well, it isn't.

    Now you can challenge whether or not my perception of the majority opinion is correct or not - and if we're discussing society at large I would guess that you are correct - most do not see this as sexist or rude.

    However I was referring to the atheist community - and based on what I've read and heard so far, it does seem to me that while there is not a complete agreement, there does appear to be close enough to a consensus to warrant my making the claims I did.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #672
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭gargleblaster


    liamw wrote: »
    It's possible you haven't read the entire thread, but I agree with this. I also pointed out that this applies to every situation - being considerate - nothing to do with sexism.

    Well we disagree here, because it seems to me that if an individual is disrespected in a manner that indicates the treatment is dependent on an assumption made based on, or inconsiderate treatment based on (as in this case) their gender, that it is indeed sexism.
    I have no issue with RW stating how she felt in her own personal blog. The manner in which she said it though implied that she was speaking on behalf of 50% of the human race, which is stupid.

    I disagree that it's stupid. Despite the fact that not all women recognize why the way he approached her was inconsiderate/rude/threatening - the majority of women seem to agree that it was. She could have pointed out that not all women agree, but the fact is, most do. And logically speaking, it really does seem fairly patently obvious - as the farting in an elevator or making armpit farts in church analogies would seem to demonstrate quite clearly.


  • Options
    #673
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    gargleblaster wrote: »
    What's the point of coming up with excuses for rude behavior?
    Because when people make an effort to understand other people's POV's, we often find that at least one person is misunderstanding the other. It would be exceedingly weird -- if the feminist interpretation of his intentions were accurate -- for some guy to be intentionally rude to a girl in a lift while simultaneously hoping that she's going to consent to sex with him?
    gargleblaster wrote: »
    It really comes down to what one wishes to discuss. I wish to discuss the issue of whether or not the alleged come on was rude and/or sexist. I obviously think it was both. Others disagree.
    If that's what you wish to discuss, then fire away -- that's what the forum is for. Though if you want to discuss just a single possible interpretation of the elevator-gate events, and apply value-judgements to your specific interpretation, then it's perhaps to avoid declaring that there's just a single interpretation, since (as I've pointed out quite a few times at this stage) there are plenty of other possible interpretations too.
    gargleblaster wrote: »
    [...] what has that got to do with the assertion that she is just making it all up?
    If you're referring to me, then I'm going to have to point out -- again --- that I did not assert that she made it up. I suggested it as a possibility, one of many.
    gargleblaster wrote: »
    Please don't put words in my mouth. [...]
    :)
    gargleblaster wrote: »
    As for the quotation marks, mea culpa. [...] My mistake.
    Your apology is accepted.

    If you feel that any specific post contravenes the forum's rules, then please click on the little warning triangle in the panel to the left of the main post and the forum moderators will be informed and will take whatever action is deemed necessary.


  • Options
    #674
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    liamw wrote: »
    The manner in which she said it though implied that she was speaking on behalf of 50% of the human race, which is stupid.
    Not to add her claim that (a) "most" of the other 50% "are not rapists"; (b) males within the skeptic/atheist community are somewhere on a spectrum from grossly-arrogant-towards-women to openly lecherous and (c) that anybody who disagrees with her specific interpretation of her side of the story is "clueless". Etc, etc, etc.


  • Options
    #675
    virmilitaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 560 ✭✭✭virmilitaris


    robindch wrote: »
    Not to add her claim that (a) "most" of the other 50% "are not rapists"; (b) males within the skeptic/atheist community are somewhere on a spectrum from grossly-arrogant-towards-women to openly lecherous and (c) that anybody who disagrees with her specific interpretation of her side of the story is "clueless". Etc, etc, etc.

    Ah yes, unless we agree with RW's side we 'don't get it' even though the interpretation of what 'it' is changes faster than the weather.


  • Options
    #676
    virmilitaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 560 ✭✭✭virmilitaris


    gargleblaster wrote:

    I disagree that it's stupid. Despite the fact that not all women recognize why the way he approached her was inconsiderate/rude/threatening - the majority of women seem to agree that it was.…

    The majority can think what they like. It doesn't make it correct.

    You are right about one thing though, this is an age and a culture difference issue.

    What you and RW supporters are advocating is the old fashioned 'women are delicate' bull excrement that so many older people agree with. Men can go rpund having sex with whomever they like but a woman should be more pure because to do otherwise somehow makes her unclean. Utter nonsense.

    Every generation this kind of old fashioned nonsense is dying and young people see the two genders as more equal all the time. Its completely common these days to see groups of friends consisting of both sexes whereas before it would be very rare.

    When I explained this situation to my wife she thought RW was offended because she was conservative. Which um beginning to think is a good point in itself.

    RW and the other so called feminists are pepetuating the image of the old fashioned woman who gets offended at the thought of sex without been treated like a little princess for weeks before hand. The old fashioned nonsense that women are doing men a favour by having sex, 'spread the legs and think of England' to coin a phrase.

    Well f@#$ that. I believe that women are our equals and should be treated as such. Not as some kind of delicate flower that bruises if we handle it too roughly.

    Women and men are human beings and we should treat eachother as good as we ourselves want to be treated. I refuse to succumb to this nonsensical idea that one half of the human race needs to be treated differently.


  • Options
    #677
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,775 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    ya know how when some blogger gets arrested for criticising the leaders in some authoritarian country and then bloggers from .ie/uk/usa start 'saying one of us has been oppressed I know how they feel' I cringe and avoid it.

    ya know how when some person gets harassed for their non-religious views in some country where there's social conflict over the issue and people say oh I'm an atheist I know how they feel, I cringe and avoid it.


  • Options
    #678
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    If it was sexist and rude for elevator guy to come onto RW, then what if a gay guy approached another gay guy in the same situation? Not sexist presumably -- merely rude?

    Is it just automatically sexist if a dude does it to a woman?


  • Options
    #679
    Turkana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭Turkana


    I'm not going to read through 46 bleedin' pages of this, but I'm on Dawkins' side. The volley of abuse he got on Pharyngula was typical of internet warrior-ism. If they were all physically in his presence when he said that, there wouldn't be a peep.


  • Options
    #680
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    gargleblaster wrote: »
    ......................



    Ahem. You do realize that when discussing matters such as this, where the issue is whether or not something is socially acceptable, that argumentum ad populum is not fallacious? Apparently not. Well, it isn't.

    Now you can challenge whether or not my perception of the majority opinion is correct or not - and if we're discussing society at large I would guess that you are correct - most do not see this as sexist or rude.

    However I was referring to the atheist community - and based on what I've read and heard so far, it does seem to me that while there is not a complete agreement, there does appear to be close enough to a consensus to warrant my making the claims I did.

    What did I say? Why I said an attempt at an " unverifiable Argumentum Ad Populum".


  • Options
    #681
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Dave! wrote: »
    If it was sexist and rude for elevator guy to come onto RW, then what if a gay guy approached another gay guy in the same situation? Not sexist presumably -- merely rude?
    Uh, asexist?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #682
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭gargleblaster


    virmilitaris wrote: »
    The majority can think what they like. It doesn't make it correct.

    Actually, when it comes to social norms, it kinda does.

    It used to be a social norm for minorites, women and adherents to various religions to be the subject of rampant discrimination. Most of that has fallen by the wayside, at least in western societies. Neither sexism nor racism has disappeared completely.

    You are right about one thing though, this is an age and a culture difference issue.

    What you and RW supporters are advocating is the old fashioned 'women are delicate' bull excrement that so many older people agree with. Men can go rpund having sex with whomever they like but a woman should be more pure because to do otherwise somehow makes her unclean. Utter nonsense.

    Pardon me? No, you have it completely wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with prudishness or limiting women's sexuality.



    As for the unverifiability of my claims that most of the atheist community 'gets it', we only have empirical evidence to go on. Lacking surveys doesn't mean we can't hypothesize about how many people agree that it was a gesture born out of male privilege.

    If you don't wish to attempt to show how I've got it wrong regarding the opinion of the atheist community in general, that's fine. However I'd like to point out that this discussion seems to me to be an exception to the other discussions I've seen. Every other one was dominated by those who claimed to 'get it' - and those who claimed that the rest were being hysterical, prude, or whatever other completely illogical and frankly laughably ridiculous claims (forcing women to wear burqas, wanting to stop men from having sex, etc.) were in the distinct minority.


    Obviously most of the atheists on this forum disagree that it was sexist. It's been enjoyable discussing the issue here for a bit, thanks for the conversation.


  • Options
    #683
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,182 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    So they guy asked her back for coffee and she said no, end of story. I mean how dare he find her attractive.


  • Options
    #684
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    gargleblaster wrote: »
    I'd like to point out that this discussion seems to me to be an exception to the other discussions I've seen.
    Given the standard of debate in most other places, that's quite a compliment :)


  • Options
    #685
    virmilitaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 560 ✭✭✭virmilitaris


    gargleblaster wrote: »
    Actually, when it comes to social norms, it kinda does.

    Ah right. Like slavery or any number of examples were in the past ? Gotcha.

    Just because the majority think one group should be treated differently does not make it right.
    It used to be a social norm for minorites, women and adherents to various religions to be the subject of rampant discrimination. Most of that has fallen by the wayside, at least in western societies. Neither sexism nor racism has disappeared completely.

    The sexism perpetuated by RW and her supporters you mean ?
    Pardon me? No, you have it completely wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with prudishness or limiting women's sexuality.

    Oh doesn't it ? You came into this thread dismissing women that would take up such an offer.
    gargleblaster wrote:
    As for people finding creepy, impersonal, inconsiderate come-ons "exciting", or otherwise being so incredibly desperate for attention that they find such treatment something they're willing to tolerate, I'm sure there are many.
    As for the unverifiability of my claims that most of the atheist community 'gets it', we only have empirical evidence to go on.

    Argumentum ad populum. It's irrelevant how many agree or disagree with your position in terms of whether it's right or not.

    RW et al's position is sexist against men and women. It is forcing a wedge between the sexes based on old fashioned nonsense about womens sexuality.
    Obviously most of the atheists on this forum at least disagree that it was sexist.

    Argumentum ad populum. I couldn't care less how many agree or disagree.
    It's been enjoyable discussing the issue here for a bit, thanks for the conversation.

    Thank you for coming in, accusing everyone of making strawmen and throwing irrelevant comments around the thread.


  • Options
    #686
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    So they guy asked her back for coffee and she said no, end of story. I mean how dare he find her attractive.

    /facepalm

    talk about over simplifying and missing the point and asserting that men have the right to hit on any woman they feel inclined to and women should just suck it up.

    like I said in tLL

    The lady was here to talk to skeptics and atheists.

    Thus far such groups/associations have been predominately male (like this forum).
    There have been issues when more women have been joining, instead of seeing them as fellow sceptics and atheists the guys have been hitting on them.

    When you are the minority gender in a group/association and a substantive percentage of the other gender uses the gatherings as a chance to hit on you, they are sexualising you and making an issue of your gender.

    When this happens enough to a person they will leave as the group/association becomes a sexual intimidating place to be, which means less people join up and it's harder for the group/association to achieve it's goals, it's a behaviour which is holding the group/association/cause back.

    Part of her talk was about this and about her experience as a woman who has had this happen to her time and time again. And then some idiot does exactly that.

    This is a pretty big issues within certain sub cultures which are/have been mostly made up of men, who on seeing a woman who has some of the same interests make a move. The women are not there to be chatted up they are there to take part and men chatting them up gets in the way of this and undermines them.

    There had been at that very same conference a panel on this, and yet this genius still perpetuated this behaviour.

    As for Dawkins, he doesn't get it, he's trivialising it and has never experienced it and doens't see it as a problem. He's as much of a genius as the other guy. He has no comprehension of what it's like and so is dismissive.

    But this stuff if not just prevalent in sceptic/atheist groups/associations.
    It can and does happen in any gathering which has more men then women esp young single men, when a single woman turns up. The issue is the behaviour of the men and not the presence of the women.

    The issue isn't the women's sexuality it is that of the men and how they choose to act on it or express it.


  • Options
    #687
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭gargleblaster


    It's funny but also sad that I've been called up for "accusing" people of making strawman arguments. As if there were no basis for that observation - as if it isn't, in fact, a fact.

    Good luck with the whole logic thing, everyone. As for me, I prefer the standard of debate elsewhere. You know, where most don't shy away from backing up others in calling out such ridiculously obvious logic fails (as opposed to letting them stand unchallenged, and allowing those engaging in such nonsense to believe they are somehow making sense), even when they don't agree with their overall views.


    I said that most women wouldn't take up such an offer, and I maintain that is true. Not because they're prude. Because they have more than a lick of common sense. I mean seriously.

    So yeah, that really is it for me. Sweet weeping Jesus.


  • Options
    #688
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ^^^ gargleblaster -- the weird thing is that I think quite a few people here actually agree with what you're trying to say. Or with what I think you're trying to say. Or with what you inadvertently said or implied while actually trying to say something else.

    If you complained less about other forum posters and the standard of debate here, and spent a bit more time arguing your case clearly and concisely, I dare say you'd find the whole experience a bit less frustrating.


  • Options
    #689
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    Sharrow wrote: »
    Thus far such groups/associations have been predominately male (like this forum).
    There have been issues when more women have been joining, instead of seeing them as fellow sceptics and atheists the guys have been hitting on them.
    Humans will still remain humans whether atheist, skeptics or not. Some women hit on men, some women enjoy being hit on, some men hit on women, some men enjoy getting hit on. Everybody is different so its not acceptable for some women to suggest certain rules should be followed by all women/men. If someone is not being persistent or agressive etc in any way and remains very polite then I don't see it as an issue that a male asks a female if they would like to have coffee with them as the male finds the female interesting. But then again I must not get "it".
    Sharrow wrote: »
    When you are the minority gender in a group/association and a substantive percentage of the other gender uses the gatherings as a chance to hit on you, they are sexualising you and making an issue of your gender.
    You are saying that a large percentage of males are using the gathering as a chance to hit on females.

    Lets take RW's experience as an example, I dont know how many were at the conference but lets just say that there were 100 males and 30 females. Now from what RW is saying 1 guy hit on her (Whether it was a hit on her or not is debatable). So 1 male hit on her and suddenly a substantial number of males are using it as a chance to hit on the females and sexualise them there. Do you realise how unfair that tar brushing is on all the males that did not hit on females? How do we know but maybe some females hit on males too?

    Have we any proof that this is an epidemic? Are guys more likely to hit on women at atheist conferences rather than at other events? How many have not been polite?
    Sharrow wrote: »
    When this happens enough to a person they will leave as the group/association becomes a sexual intimidating place to be, which means less people join up and it's harder for the group/association to achieve it's goals, it's a behaviour which is holding the group/association/cause back.
    I am still skeptical of how often this occurs. How is a hit on even defined?
    Sharrow wrote: »
    Part of her talk was about this and about her experience as a woman who has had this happen to her time and time again. And then some idiot does exactly that.
    Do we even know if this guy heard her talk? Plus I am not sure he even hit on her. He started with "don't take this the wrong way" and asked her for a coffee. She said no and he probably said "ok".
    Sharrow wrote: »
    This is a pretty big issues within certain sub cultures which are/have been mostly made up of men, who on seeing a woman who has some of the same interests make a move. The women are not there to be chatted up they are there to take part and men chatting them up gets in the way of this and undermines them.
    Can you tell me that no woman chatted up a male at any of these events? Oh wait, didn't RW herself meet her husband/ex at an atheist meetup?
    Sharrow wrote: »
    There had been at that very same conference a panel on this, and yet this genius still perpetuated this behaviour.
    We don't know what he did or did not listen to at the conference.
    Sharrow wrote: »
    As for Dawkins, he doesn't get it, he's trivialising it and has never experienced it and doens't see it as a problem. He's as much of a genius as the other guy. He has no comprehension of what it's like and so is dismissive.
    He trivialised it because it is a trivial matter. If the guy for instance had been in any ways pushy or even impolite or if there was even more evidence that he had hit on her then she might have something to complain about but it just sounds like looking for attention and making the feminist movement look bad for making hot air over nothing without those. Surely there might be better examples than the one she gave.


  • Options
    #690
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    I think Watson has a point in what she says about women constantly being hit upon in social situations, and I can imagine it can be somewhat off putting for some. Dawkin's post was funny, but a little ill-conceived, and perhaps if he had thought about it first, he may not have made it. After all, just because one is treated less badly than another, doesn't mean that one isn't being treated badly at all. Which seems to be the essence of Dawkin's point. It's not exactly an intellectually rigorous argument.

    However, I read Watson's blog comment and, not having heard of her before, did a little bit of googling. One of the first results is her personal page on The Skeptic's Guide website (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/bios.aspx), in which she appears in a rather alluring pose, reading a book, apparently naked. Nothing wrong with that at all of course, except it might be considered a tad rich to complain of sexual objectification of women, whilst posing in such a titilating fashion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #691
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭gargleblaster


    robindch wrote: »
    ^^^ gargleblaster -- the weird thing is that I think quite a few people here actually agree with what you're trying to say. Or with what I think you're trying to say. Or with what you inadvertently said or implied while actually trying to say something else.

    The way I see it is, if I'm so incredibly hard to understand, if my communication skills are so exceedingly poor that it's hard to even know if my points have merit or not, then I'm just wasting my time as well as anyone else's time who bothers to read what I'm typing.
    If you complained less about other forum posters and the standard of debate here, and spent a bit more time arguing your case clearly and concisely, I dare say you'd find the whole experience a bit less frustrating.

    My complaints are limited to the most outrageous examples. I suppose it's a personal failing that I can't just let every example of incredibly poor logic on display go by without comment. I do let most of them go. It is very shocking to me that so many are just allowed to stand. The appearance this gives is that nobody sees any problem with the statements.

    Either way, I'm clearly wasting my and others' time, so thanks again for the stimulating conversation, and for the attempt at constructive criticism as well, and but I really do not see the point in continuing further.


Advertisement