Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

seamus

tawnyowl wrote: »

The circumstances were also a factor:

• It happened in a lift - quite enclosed.
• At 4am in the morning - not many people around then and CCTV might not be checked until morning.

Tbh, I don't see how her misplaced discomfort is any kind of factor. If the above two were factors in her reasons for not liking this, then we could equally accuse her of misandry for assuming that any man who shows an interest is a potential rapist.

Complaining about a man propositioning her in a fairly respectable manner is a first-world problem. There was no harm in what he said, he didn't do anything disrespectful. Shocking that he might think that a woman would be interested in a romantic encounter, how dare he!

Just to note: If a man were propositioned by a woman in an elevator at 4am, he wouldn't be in slightest offended or otherwise think that he was being disrespected. So there's no reason to assume that when the roles are reversed, that the man is acting disrespectfully. There's a double standard at play here, and it's not on the part of propositioner.

fatmammycat

MrStuffins wrote: »

No, SHE said it was mysogonistic. It's not mysogonistic at all.

But i'll concede this, having seen a picture of her I now think it was inappropriate for the guy to approach her. What was he thinking?

Excellent, dismiss her genuine concerns and then comment on her looks, well done.

MrStuffins

fatmammycat wrote: »

If you don't understand a topic on what grounds do you dismiss it as ridiculous?

He understands perfectly. His statement was slightly sarcastic. Haven't you ever heard a sentence start like this before?

"Maybe i'm crazy, but........"

This is not an admission of being crazy. Get it?

MrStuffins

fatmammycat wrote: »

Excellent, dismiss her genuine concerns

She was not concerned, she was uncomfortable. She had no reason to be concerned. Nothing happened.

and then comment on her looks, well done.

Thank you

fatmammycat

seamus wrote: »

Tbh, I don't see how her misplaced discomfort is any kind of factor. If the above two were factors in her reasons for not liking this, then we could equally accuse her of misandry for assuming that any man who shows an interest is a potential rapist.

her discomfort is her discomfort, you don't get to decide it is misplaced, she had ALREADY spoken of her discomfort at being hit on at conventions, then this guys hits on her at 4am in a fecking lift. What are you not understanding here? She didn't accuse him of rape OR of being a potential rapist, she asked – mildly- that men not to do something that makes her uncomfortable.

fatmammycat

MrStuffins wrote: »

He understands perfectly. His statement was slightly sarcastic. Haven't you ever heard a sentence start like this before?

"Maybe i'm crazy, but........"

This is not an admission of being crazy. Get it?

Its a dismissal based on not understanding, yeah I get it, I also get you. You're unwilling to think about Rebeccca Watson's point at all and the crack about her looks proves something.

seamus

fatmammycat wrote: »

she asked – mildly- that men not to do something that makes her uncomfortable.

Maybe he missed it. I did.

nozzferrahhtoo

fatmammycat wrote: »

I find it MOST telling that people are then keen to dismiss what she said in favour of what they think she said/meant.

The problem is that she is doing the same thing herself now.

Dawkins was pretty dismissive and tactless in his reply to her complaint about the event, but all he did was to dismiss the event. This one... single.... isolated event.... in comparison to the horror around the world. What she is now saying he has done is... in her words....

So to have my concerns – and more so the concerns of other women who have survived rape and sexual assault – dismissed thanks to a rich white man comparing them to the plight of women who are mutilated, is insulting to all of us.

Was dawkins tactless? Yes. Was he overly dismissive? Yes. Did he do ANYTHING of the sort described in the above quote however? No.

What we have here is a simple break down in communication between two grown adults. Nothing more, nothing less. Each has managed to miss the point of the other entirely.

The question now is can they act like adults, re-establish discourse and rationally work out where the other one is coming from? I would hope the answer is yes, but now that she is calling for all kinds of boycotts of Dawkins and so on I doubt it.

I had the pleasure of being the person who met Watson at the airport for AAI and had her in the car with me for a long time (Dublin Traffic). I had never heard of her before and in that drive I managed to build a healthy respect for her, her mind, her opinions and her maturity.

Alas this storm in a tea cup, and how she has reacted to it, has eroded much of that away again. Disappointed is the only word for what I feel right now. There simply is no other emotion attached to how I feel about her performance here.

To be honest I am disappointed in both of them. I am disappointed in Dawkins for being AS belittling as he was with his “Dear Mulima” letter, even though his general point was sound enough. I am disappointed in Rebecca for completely missing the point he was making too within that over done pseudo letter.

I think she has just snapped due to a long accumulation of bad men, emailed threats of rape and worse. She has just snapped at the wrong time. She says herself that:

so I grow angrier. I knew that eventually I would reach a sort of feminist singularity where I would explode and in my place would rise some kind of Captain Planet-type superhero but for feminists.

Clearly she has felt a cumulative rage... most of it justifiably so... but has snapped at the wrong time, at the wrong person, for the wrong reasons. The personal insults and talk of boycotting is just a childish tantrum and nothing more and makes neither of them look good in this.

fatmammycat

"Just to note: If a man were propositioned by a woman in an elevator at 4am, he wouldn't be in slightest offended or otherwise think that he was being disrespected. So there's no reason to assume that when the roles are reversed, that the man is acting disrespectfully. There's a double standard at play here, and it's not on the part of propositioner."

Strawman.

MrStuffins

fatmammycat wrote: »

Its a dismissal based on not understanding, yeah I get it, I also get you.

You obviously don't. I've explained to you how the structure of his sentence works. Is English your first language?

You're unwilling to think about Rebeccca Watson's point at all

I understand her point quite well. I just disagree with her. She needs to suck it up.

and the crack about her looks proves something.

Yeah, proves that i'm frickin' hilarious!

fatmammycat

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The problem is that she is doing the same thing herself now.

Dawkins was pretty dismissive and tactless in his reply to her complaint about the event, but all he did was to dismiss the event. This one... single.... isolated event.... in comparison to the horror around the world. What she is now saying he has done is... in her words....



Was dawkins tactless? Yes. Was he overly dismissive? Yes. Did he do ANYTHING of the sort described in the above quote however? No.

What we have here is a simple break down in communication between two grown adults. Nothing more, nothing less. Each has managed to miss the point of the other entirely.

The question now is can they act like adults, re-establish discourse and rationally work out where the other one is coming from? I would hope the answer is yes, but now that she is calling for all kinds of boycotts of Dawkins and so on I doubt it.

I had the pleasure of being the person who met Watson at the airport for AAI and had her in the car with me for a long time (Dublin Traffic). I had never heard of her before and in that drive I managed to build a healthy respect for her, her mind, her opinions and her maturity.

Alas this storm in a tea cup, and how she has reacted to it, has eroded much of that away again. Disappointed is the only word for what I feel right now. There simply is no other emotion attached to how I feel about her performance here.

To be honest I am disappointed in both of them. I am disappointed in Dawkins for being AS belittling as he was with his “Dear Mulima” letter, even though his general point was sound enough. I am disappointed in Rebecca for completely missing the point he was making too within that over done pseudo letter.

I think she has just snapped due to a long accumulation of bad men, emailed threats of rape and worse. She has just snapped at the wrong time. She says herself that:



Clearly she has felt a cumulative rage... most of it justifiably so... but has snapped at the wrong time, at the wrong person, for the wrong reasons. The personal insults and talk of boycotting is just a childish tantrum and nothing more and makes neither of them look good in this.

I agree with much of your post and clearly this situation had spirialed– her reaction to Dawkins is def a culmination, yet I totally understand her anger towards the dismissive and angry reaction of her original and rather mild rebuke. Men( some) sure hate to have their behaviour challanged it seems, even the 'enlightened' atheists.

MrStuffins

fatmammycat wrote: »

Men sure hate to have their behaviour challanged it seems, even the 'enlightened' atheists.

I'm sorry but i find this sexist and would like to over-react here if I may?

fatmammycat

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'm sorry but i find this sexist and would like to over-react here if I may?

Do what you wish, I am done talking with you.

seamus

fatmammycat wrote: »

Strawman.

Actually that's not the purpose of the statement.

Part of the argument here revolves around the idea that some woman feel somehow belittled if they are hit on by men in certain circumstances. However, a man never feels belittled if the roles are reversed.

So a man who propositions a man is not in his mind disrespecting her, belittling her or otherwise dismissing her intellect. A man doesn't consider such a proposition to be disrespectful (certainly the incident inquestion was not). How she feels about it is quite irrelevant, because its the intention that's important. I have no time for people who get offended about things which were not intended to cause offence.

She can go on and on about disliking it all she wants, but the man has not wronged her. He has not shown her any disrespect, but she has decided to misinterpret his actions as such.

Morgase

Watson didn't do very much wrong with her original video which said "Guys, please don't follow a woman who has recently come to a strange city, who you don't know very well into a lift and proposition her" (paraphrasing). I seriously can't see what the big deal is with saying that she's not comfortable with that kind of behaviour. That's all she said, she wasn't screaming sexism or misogyny.

The woman had been speaking about how annoying it is to be hit on at these events and then he goes and hits on her. I reckon Dawkins knows what he did was a bit silly, but had to respond with a snide remark instead of saying "yeah, in the cold light of day it does seem a bit inappropriate" or just saying nothing at all.

fatmammycat

seamus wrote: »

Actually that's not the purpose of the statement.

Part of the argument here revolves around the idea that some woman feel somehow belittled if they are hit on by men in certain circumstances. However, a man never feels belittled if the roles are reversed.

So a man who propositions a man is not in his mind disrespecting her, belittling her or otherwise dismissing her intellect. A man doesn't consider such a proposition to be disrespectful (certainly the incident inquestion was not). How she feels about it is quite irrelevant, because its the intention that's important. I have no time for people who get offended about things which were not intended to cause offence.

She can go on and on about disliking it all she wants, but the man has not wronged her. He has not shown her any disrespect, but she has decided to misinterpret his actions as such.

But he has disregarded everything she said before the event. She said she was tired, she said she was going to bed, she spoke of her dislike at behing hit on, and then she's hit on in a confined space at 4am.

Seamus, I'm not trying to argue with you, I get your point, and I don't think what this man did was so terrible: what I DO think is awful is the reaction to it, the willingness of people to make what she said out to be an all out feminist assault on the male species, it wasn't. But it was the touchpaper that brought an awful lot of poor attitude out of the wood works and shows the atheist community in a very poor light.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

this is just.. incredible

MrStuffins

fatmammycat wrote: »

But he has disregarded everything she said before the event. She said she was tired, she said she was going to bed, she spoke of her dislike at behing hit on, and then she's hit on in a confined space at 4am.

Seamus, I'm not trying to argue with you, I get your point, and I don't think what this man did was so terrible: what I DO think is awful is the reaction to it, the willingness of people to make what she said out to be an all out feminist assualt on the male species, it wasn't. But it was the touchpaper that brought an awful lot of poor attitude out of the wood works and shows the atheist community in a very poor light.

How do you know this? Maybe Watson is just being very cocky here in presuming the guy wanted sex and not actually coffee? She's presuming the guy was attracted to her and wanted to have sex with her, even though he said nothing of the kind. Perhaps he was a homosexual man?

Actually, the fact that she jumps to a conclusion about his wanting to have sex fits a massive stereotype and, to me, is the biggest piece of sexism in this entire story! How dare she think that this guy's interest in her intellect and ofference of coffee was sexual?!

Morgase

MrStuffins wrote: »

How do you know this? Maybe Watson is just being very cocky here in presuming the guy wanted sex and not actually coffee? She's presuming the guy was attracted to her and wanted to have sex with her, even though he said nothing of the kind. Perhaps he was a homosexual man?

Actually, the fact that she jumps to a conclusion about his wanting to have sex fits a massive stereotype and, to me, is the biggest piece of sexism in this entire story! How dare she think that this guy's interest in her intellect and ofference of coffee was sexual?!

Coffee in a hotel room at 4am = sex. Everybody knows this.

nozzferrahhtoo

fatmammycat wrote: »

I agree with much of your post and clearly this situation had spirialed– her reaction to Dawkins is def a culmination, yet I totally understand her anger towards the dismissive and angry reaction of her original and rather mild rebuke. Men( some) sure hate to have their behaviour challanged it seems, even the 'enlightened' atheists.

Indeed, but I think in this case the problem really is that what the guy did wasnt all THAT bad. It sounds to me like he was in the elevator, realised she was an astoundingly intelligent and very pretty girl that he might never get a second shot at... and just chanced his arm. Tactless? Yes a bit. Totally bad form? Not SO much. But thats a different discussion.

The main issue with this story is that there are now many different discussions going on and mens behavior is only one of them. The tactless response of Dawkins, despite his main point being sound, is a second. The plight of women around the world is a third. The behavior of grown adults in the fact of a break down in communication is a fourth. A fifth could be the fact that Myers, Dawkins and Watson are, whether they like it or not, public figures and they really should know how to deal with things like this better.

And because of those many different areas of discourse, all of them at varying levels of validity, and peoples willingness to obfuscate the borders between each of them.... we can alas therefore expect not just this thread, but entire situation.... to drag on to lengths it simply does not deserve.

It was a tiny almost meaningless event, and due to a simple miscommunication between 2 grown adults it is going to reach a point that people are just going to be sick hearing about it. Even some people already are.

fatmammycat

Her exact words in fact-
"Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don't do that. You know, I don't really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and—don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner."

And that was all she said before the whole thing snowballed.

fatmammycat

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed, but I think in this case the problem really is that what the guy did wasnt all THAT bad. It sounds to me like he was in the elevator, realised she was an astoundingly intelligent and very pretty girl that he might never get a second shot at... and just chanced his arm. Tactless? Yes a bit. Totally bad form? Not SO much. But thats a different discussion.

The main issue with this story is that there are now many different discussions going on and mens behavior is only one of them. The tactless response of Dawkins, despite his main point being sound, is a second. The plight of women around the world is a third. The behavior of grown adults in the fact of a break down in communication is a fourth. A fifth could be the fact that Myers, Dawkins and Watson are, whether they like it or not, public figures and they really should know how to deal with things like this better.

And because of those many different areas of discourse, all of them at varying levels of validity, and peoples willingness to obfuscate the borders between each of them.... we can alas therefore expect not just this thread, but entire situation.... to drag on to lengths it simply does not deserve.

It was a tiny almost meaningless event, and due to a simple miscommunication between 2 grown adults it is going to reach a point that people are just going to be sick hearing about it. Even some people already are.

I think it has def reached saturation point all right, but discourse is good, even if it get fiery at times- far better than blanket dismissiveness. PZ did some fantastic break downs I think.

Count Duckula

I discovered this little furore a few days ago, and have been following with interest as all sides of the atheist spectrum wade in with opinions and comment. I read as Dawkins made his uncharacteristically ill-thought response, as PZ Myers desperately tried to make himself seem "enlightened" with an attack on male sexuality, and as Watson exploded in a ball of self-righteous fury at the prospect of men daring to try and defend the most heinous crime of asking a woman out.

So far I have being enlightened to learn that it is not right to proposition a woman. It makes us "creeps" or "weirdos" to do so; we are objectifying her, and that's simply not on.

Male sexuality is now something to be feared and reviled. It makes right-thinking women uncomfortable, and if we ever dare to express it by approaching a woman then we are monsters and rapists and deserving of disgust. This fundamentally boils down yet again to the feminist tenet that no man can be trusted, ever. We are all rapists in one form or another.

To make a woman feel uncomfortable at any time is not on, and we as men must do everything in our power to appease that discomfort; even if the cause of her unease is both unreasonable and entirely in her own head.

If simply "being in the same elevator" with a woman - without propositioning her - is enough to cause distress (as claimed by Phil Plait in the linked Bad Astronomy blog), what is a man supposed to do? Are we supposed to wait until the next one, lest the feminist who shares the lift with us reel in terror at the inevitable assault we will deliver the moment the doors are closed? Yet then are we not making special exceptions owing to her gender, which will lead to anger and ridicule further down the line when we insist on treating women "differently"?

And to approach a woman - to ask her if she wants a coffee, or would like to grab a meal - well, now, that's just wrong. How insufferable that a man might find a woman attractive - that he might be objectifying her! - and want to see if she feels the same. How revolted must a poor feminist feel when a man approaches her and asks her out; how degraded that he must view her simply as a bag of flesh to have his way with.

Yet... was sexual empowerment not one of feminism's great victories? Does it not delight that a woman's sexuality - rightfully - is no longer the domain of men, of religion, of others in society? It is hers to enjoy, to be proud of and to praise? Yet if a man wishes to indulge in his sexuality, he becomes a creep and a weirdo.

It becomes a double-standard. A woman can express her sexuality, can proposition men, can flaunt her liberty. To suggest she should not is it to be a dinosaur and misogynist; it is her right as a human being. A man, on the other hand, cannot. To express his sexuality, to proposition women, to flaunt his sexual liberty - all of these can and will lead to outcry and outrage from the feminist lobby. All of these displays make him an aggressive sexual predator; a man who can't be trusted. Apparently, as a man, enjoying sex and being a rapist are two sides of the same coin.

It seems a man's best bet is to withhold his sexuality until such a time as a woman calls him to display it. He must not approach her; he must not ask her out; he must not find her attractive unless she first states that she finds him attractive. I will assume, for the sake of argument, that most of these feminists are straight. That they do, in their core, find some men attractive. That, if they fantasise, they fantasise about encounters with attractive men. How... disquieting must it be to find attractive the very gender you revile; to be both repelled and attracted to male sexuality. I pity these poor women.

But, at the end of all this, the one lesson I have learned is that it is better to remain steadfastly asexual. To suggest to a woman that you find her attractive - nay, to even find her attractive in the first place - is abhorrent, gentlemen. Cut it out.

I think next time, I'll take the stairs.

Rev Hellfire

If she's such a precious delicate thing, perhaps she should get a male relative to escort her in public places. Its a dangerous place out there with people randomly striking up conversations and offering coffees.

MrStuffins

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If she's such a precious delicate thing, perhaps she should get a male relative to escort her in public places. Its a dangerous place out there with people randomly striking up conversations and offering coffees.

I was in Spar this morning and bought the newspaper. The lady behind the counter said "Would you like anything else?".

It's obvious what she meant! I hate being sexualised in Spar!

fatmammycat

Count Duckula wrote: »

I discovered this little furore a few days ago, and have been following with interest as all sides of the atheist spectrum wade in with opinions and comment. I read as Dawkins made his uncharacteristically ill-thought response, as PZ Myers desperately tried to make himself seem "enlightened" with an attack on male sexuality, and as Watson exploded in a ball of self-righteous fury at the prospect of men daring to try and defend the most heinous crime of asking a woman out.

So far I have being enlightened to learn that it is not right to proposition a woman. It makes us "creeps" or "weirdos" to do so; we are objectifying her, and that's simply not on.

Male sexuality is now something to be feared and reviled. It makes right-thinking women uncomfortable, and if we ever dare to express it by approaching a woman then we are monsters and rapists and deserving of disgust. This fundamentally boils down yet again to the feminist tenet that no man can be trusted, ever. We are all rapists in one form or another.

To make a woman feel uncomfortable at any time is not on, and we as men must do everything in our power to appease that discomfort; even if the cause of her unease is both unreasonable and entirely in her own head.

If simply "being in the same elevator" with a woman - without propositioning her - is enough to cause distress (as claimed by Phil Plait in the linked Bad Astronomy blog), what is a man supposed to do? Are we supposed to wait until the next one, lest the feminist who shares the lift with us reel in terror at the inevitable assault we will deliver the moment the doors are closed? Yet then are we not making special exceptions owing to her gender, which will lead to anger and ridicule further down the line when we insist on treating women "differently"?

And to approach a woman - to ask her if she wants a coffee, or would like to grab a meal - well, now, that's just wrong. How insufferable that a man might find a woman attractive - that he might be objectifying her! - and want to see if she feels the same. How revolted must a poor feminist feel when a man approaches her and asks her out; how degraded that he must view her simply as a bag of flesh to have his way with.

Yet... was sexual empowerment not one of feminism's great victories? Does it not delight that a woman's sexuality - rightfully - is no longer the domain of men, of religion, of others in society? It is hers to enjoy, to be proud of and to praise? Yet if a man wishes to indulge in his sexuality, he becomes a creep and a weirdo.

It becomes a double-standard. A woman can express her sexuality, can proposition men, can flaunt her liberty. To suggest she should not is it to be a dinosaur and misogynist; it is her right as a human being. A man, on the other hand, cannot. To express his sexuality, to proposition women, to flaunt his sexual liberty - all of these can and will lead to outcry and outrage from the feminist lobby. All of these displays make him an aggressive sexual predator; a man who can't be trusted. Apparently, as a man, enjoying sex and being a rapist are two sides of the same coin.

It seems a man's best bet is to withhold his sexuality until such a time as a woman calls him to display it. He must not approach her; he must not ask her out; he must not find her attractive unless she first states that she finds him attractive. I will assume, for the sake of argument, that most of these feminists are straight. That they do, in their core, find some men attractive. That, if they fantasise, they fantasise about encounters with attractive men. How... disquieting must it be to find attractive the very gender you revile; to be both repelled and attracted to male sexuality. I pity these poor women.

But, at the end of all this, the one lesson I have learned is that it is better to remain steadfastly asexual. To suggest to a woman that you find her attractive - nay, to even find her attractive in the first place - is abhorrent, gentlemen. Cut it out.

I think next time, I'll take the stairs.

How tedious. Oh yes, Watson speaks for all women, she's our guru don't you know. Or no wait, maybe, just maybe Watson spoke of her own experience and you're using that experience to prop up your soap box.

Count Duckula

fatmammycat wrote: »

How tedious. Oh yes, Watson speaks for all women, she's our guru don't you know. Or no wait, maybe, just maybe Watson spoke of her own experience and you're using that experience to prop up your soap box.

Then perhaps Watson should stop addressing all men when she speaks of an experience she had with only one

But given your penchant for drastic generalisations in this thread when it comes to male behaviour, I do appreciate your hypocrisy.

fatmammycat

Meh, makes no odds to me if you think I'm a hypocrite or not. I don't speak for an entire gender either but for myself.

Anyway, I've got to go to work. Bye.

Dades

Do we know for sure this guy was privy to all Watson's previous comments about how she's uncomfortable with being hit on?

Could he have just been just another head in the room who missed this 'warning' and had a few too many pints?

seamus

There is good from the incident.

It proves conclusively that any assertion of Dawkins being the "leader" or mouthpiece of atheism to be completely unfounded.

Atheists appear to agree on one thing and argue about everything else. That's not a religion