Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

tawnyowl

Dave! wrote: »

Is "sexualize" another word for "make sexual approaches towards"?

Because eh that's kinda how sexual encounters are supposed to work.

Didn't she say she was tired before she left the bar?

Ickle Magoo

robindch wrote: »

Well, how often does it happen? RW mentioned it was happening down the bar every 45 minutes or so. And fair enough, that's a pain in the ass and she's right to complain about it. It's the subsequent character assassination of Dawkins which seems out of order to me.

But for lads, well, out in the far east, for example, it happens regularly -- nice-looking girls catching one's eye, flashing smiles, occasionally brushing up against one, sometimes even going so far as to grab an arm, late at night in a hotel lift. And don't get me started about masseurs offering massages with happy endings.

All of these things I can well do without and it does take time to get used to. But a short gracious reply usually does the trick and I don't see it as "sexual objectification" any more than feel I've received a dose of "eater objectification" while being served in a restaurant. Maybe some girls out there do view guys as objects, but a lot I know don't.

How often? Well, that depends on location and ratio tbh. Sometimes it can be ridiculously often and horribly inappropriate.

I don't agree with the whole "sexual objectification" stuff because I think both sexes objectify all the time - the issue I agree with is having to deal with inappropriate time and manner of that objectification being conveyed. I'm struggling to think of a girls night out where one or all of us at some stage were not "accosted" and by accosted mean forcefully trying to get away or being abused for daring to want to get away from some guy trying it on. Multiply that and situations like it over the span of most women's adult life and it becomes a tedious and predictable chore.

Now, guys may only chance their arm with a couple of girls in a couple of situations on a night out but girls are fielding such advances ALL NIGHT from all angles. On the dancefloor, at the bar, chatting, fair enough...at 4 am, in a lift, after you've said goodnight to professional peers or colleagues - a plead to be let alone unless invited? I totally get where she's coming from.

amacachi

seamus wrote: »

There is of course the eternal issue that an attractive man who flirts with women is a charmer or a ladies' man. An ugly guy who does the same thing is a creep.

Does asking someone what time it is count as trying to flirt? If so it would explain a slap I got that I'm still trying to figure out. :pac:

Rev Hellfire

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Point out where I said it was all guys?

You implied with when you said

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The point I did make is it's not a once off, hell it's not even unusual - so to the sentiment "guys, don't do that" - I see where she's coming from, absolutely.

But as we've all come to realize at this stage the only sexists are male sexists.

axer

seamus wrote: »

I think the best we can hope for is a little respect on both sides - the guy doesn't act pushy or sleazy about come-ons and the girl is honest and respectful in responding and saying, "No, thank you". It's unfortunate that a guy who appears to have been acting entirely within the realm of respect has sparked a debate on the actions of a subset of idiots who hit on everything that moves.

This is exactly the essence of my problem with SkepChick's sexist remarks and why Dawkins was correct in his point that what she experienced was not in anyways bad other than her own perception of it being bad.

This guy did nothing wrong in fact from what SkepChick has said he was perfectly polite and was in no way persistent but yet she felt the need to somehow imply he was in the same group as sexual predator by feeling the need to point out to all guys that this was wrong or unacceptable behaviour.

amacachi

axer wrote: »

This guy did nothing wrong in fact from what SkepChick has said he was perfectly polite and was in no way persistent but yet she felt the need to somehow imply he was in the same group as sexual predator by feeling the need to point out to all guys that this was wrong or unacceptable behaviour.

The fact that later she says that any propositioning shows that the propositoner sees the propositionee as a "lower-status person" shows where her attitude is coming from and closes this particular case for me.

Beruthiel

Count Duckula wrote: »

But why is it creepy? Desperate, sure, I agree with you. A last roll of the dice, I guess, for a horny man with a skin-full. But creepy? Is the fact that it's construed as "creepy" not a direct indication that a man showing sexual interest is something to be feared?

Normally no, but, if it's four in the morning, the guy is a stranger, drunk and you are stuck in a lift with no escape, that's a whole other ball game.
I believe I would be totally freaked out under such circumstances and for no other reason than I cannot get away if he were to attempt anything. It would be totally outside my comfort zone.

Count Duckula

I'm genuinely interested, and I'm not looking to troll, when I say at what point is it acceptable then for a man to hit on a woman?

I understand it can get highly annoying for a woman to be constantly hit on by streams of men who want nothing more then a quick shag. Not only the annoyance of it, but there probably is something a bit degrading in the fact that they're hitting on you not because they like you, but because they're horny and you are a woman.

I fully get that.

I also understand that there must always be a bit of a worry as to the man's motives, especially when those advances are made when you are alone with him and the surroundings lend themselves well to a rapist's modus operandi.

However, taken to its logical extreme, this would result in men not ever making advances on women and relying totally on the women showing interest in the men. Obviously, nobody wants this as it is totally unworkable. But in order to not make a woman feel uncomfortable, how and when would it be acceptable for a man approach her?

I honestly believe the vast majority of men hit on women and put them in uncomfortable situations merely because they do not understand the consequences of their actions, and cannot empathise with the woman's position in the exchange - they know that they mean no harm, so why is she acting so strangely and freaked out?

Ickle Magoo

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

You implied with when you said

If you aren't doing it already and have no intention of doing so, then why would you assume such a plea is aimed at you?

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But as we've all come to realize at this stage the only sexists are male sexists.

Yeah, that's just what's being said. Bravo.

.<- point







-> you

Rev Hellfire

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If you aren't doing it already and have no intention of doing so, then why would you assume such a plea is aimed at you?

Perhaps as a male I'm fed up as being looked at as a potential rapist all the time and someone to be feared as an animal barely in control of their urges.

I'm not sure where I get these crazy ideas from.

Ickle Magoo

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Perhaps as a male I'm fed up as being looked at as a potential rapist all the time and someone to be feared as an animal barely in control of their urges.

I'm not sure where I get these crazy ideas from.

Who's looking at you like a potential rapist? I said it was annoying - does annoying = rape now? :rolleyes:

axer

Beruthiel wrote: »

Normally no, but, if it's four in the morning, the guy is a stranger, drunk and you are stuck in a lift with no escape, that's a whole other ball game.
I believe I would be totally freaked out under such circumstances and for no other reason than I cannot get away if he were to attempt anything. It would be totally outside my comfort zone.

Except in this situation there is no mention that the guy was drunk - that was a sexist implication by Ickle Magoo from what I can see.

The fact here is SkepChick felt the need to tell all guys that they should not act like sexual predators/misogynists like this guy even though he was completely polite with no mention of persistence or aggressiveness. Very sexist in my opinion.

<Tells story> "Girls, don't do that. Don't be so sensitive and emotional."
Oops was I being sexist!?

axer

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Who's looking at you like a potential rapist? I said it was annoying - does annoying = rape now? :rolleyes:

Read the comments below SkepChicks blog post and you will see how many imply that. I find it very sexist and annoying but more ironic really.

Ickle Magoo

axer wrote: »

that was a sexist implication by Ickle Magoo from what I can see.

Who was responding to this post...Here and my own experience of being asked for "coffee" in hotels...nowhere did I claim the man who propositioned RW was anything, other than agreeing I would have considered it annoying and inappropriate - his or her sobriety is yet another red herring.

Ickle Magoo

axer wrote: »

Read the comments below SkepChicks blog post and you will see how many imply that. I find it very sexist and annoying but more ironic really.

Well, perhaps following a women at 4am to proposition in a lift when you could have done same in the hotel lobby was not a particularly wise move. Thanks to volume of men who's unwelcome and uninvited behaviour has made me feel threatened and intimidated, it's not something I would have appreciated either. Perhaps your ire should be directed at those men who's behaviour has resulted in women having to be so safety concious?

Hobbes

From the full description of the incident the guy came across as shy. I mean he says "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee? "

Clearly he is either (a) not asking for a vertical boogy, or (b) he is shy.

King Mob

Rebecca Watson never said she thought the guy was a rapist or that he definitely thought that he was going to try something, just that a proposition in that circumstance was uncomfortable and made the point that men didn't really get how uncomfortable something like that can be.

But then there's people saying "she's overly sensitive" or she thinks that everyone is out to rape her, and this is the kinda stuff that is the problem.

mikhail

tawnyowl wrote: »

The circumstances were also a factor:

• She said she was tired and wanted to go to her room.
• He said he wanted to have coffee with her. (Despite her saying she was tired.)
• 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.
• I think it was mentioned in one of the online discussions that she'd mentioned a problem with being hit on in email.
• I think there was also mention that he was with the group in the bar, but didn't talk to her then.

It's possible, though not likely, that he meant literally what he said. It's possible that he was propositioning her in a way he thought was non-threatening. It's possible that there was some other possibility.

Rebecca erred on the side of caution.

Erring on the side of caution was declining the offer. The following is by Rebecca Watson, from here.

With all other complaints answered, my critics fell back to one complaint: I was wrong to use McGraw’s name.

Now I must share one additional fact about me: I loathe passive aggressive behavior. Loathe it. I sincerely believe that if you are going to criticize someone’s argument, you should clearly and honestly state to whom you are referring and what exactly they have said or done that you find objectionable.

For me, this is a question of respect: I have enough respect for the person I am criticizing to not make them guess that I am talking about them or guess at what they said that needs to be defended, and I have enough respect for my audience to allow them the opportunity to double check my work. If I hide the person and the exact words that I am criticizing, how does anyone know whether or not I’m creating a strawman? How can the person in question respond?

Now, she might dismiss it, but publicly shaming a guy over what he did is objectionable, and her defence of it is pathetic. I have no doubt he made her feel uncomfortable, and that makes him a bit of a dick whether he intended to or not, but the internet has a long memory: naming him in an accusation of misogyny is a big deal, and in my book that makes her by far the bigger dick.

Dades

tawnyowl wrote: »

Didn't she say she was tired before she left the bar?

Have we established that Elevator Guy was privy to all her pre-elevator remarks/preferences?

He could, afaik, just have been the wrong guy in the wrong lift with the wrong skepchick.

fatmammycat

mikhail wrote: »

Erring on the side of caution was declining the offer. The following is by Rebecca Watson, from here.

Now, she might dismiss it, but publicly shaming a guy over what he did is objectionable, and her defence of it is pathetic. I have no doubt he made her feel uncomfortable, and that makes him a bit of a dick whether he intended to or not, but the internet has a long memory: naming him in an accusation of misogyny is a big deal, and in my book that makes her by far the bigger dick.

MrGraw is NOT the man in the lift, but another blogger's name, a woman. And that piece you quote is about a post that woman wrote.

fatmammycat

Dades wrote: »

Have we established that Elevator Guy was privy to all her pre-elevator remarks/preferences?

He could, afaik, just have been the wrong guy in the wrong lift with the wrong skepchick.

"but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more." I'm guessing he heard what she had to say earlier.

nozzferrahhtoo

fatmammycat wrote: »

"but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more." I'm guessing he heard what she had to say earlier.

Yes but what PARTS of what she had to say earlier we have no information on. He may have entirely missed the one piece of her talks that you are assuming he heard here. Or maybe what he finds interesting was nothing at all from that day but from his dipping in and out of some of her blog.

I think it important to highlight just how little we know in fact. We do not know if the guy even EXISTS, or was he something created to make a point. We do not even know his side of the story. We... literally... know.... nothing.

axer

It seems quite hypocritical that this women who does not like being sexually objectified has no problem making money out of other women being sexually objectified.

Screenshot taken from here:
http://skepchick.org/2011/04/guest-post-jeff-penalty-surly-amys-birthday/

Cavehill Red

To summarise: a militant feminist attention seeker sought to present a polite late-night come-on as a violation, got called on her exaggeration by one of the world's smartest people, and parlayed that into further attention?

Sounds like a win-win for her.

Meanwhile, where do I apply to in order to get back the half-hour I just wasted on her me-me-me fixation?

Ickle Magoo

Does she get to choose what ads are on the site?

And in what way does an ad on the internet detract from the point she's making re men approaching her in a lift at 4am making her feel uncomfortable?

axer

Not the only one either as this was on the same page.

fatmammycat

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes but what PARTS of what she had to say earlier we have no information on. He may have entirely missed the one piece of her talks that you are assuming he heard here. Or maybe what he finds interesting was nothing at all from that day but from his dipping in and out of some of her blog.

I think it important to highlight just how little we know in fact. We do not know if the guy even EXISTS, or was he something created to make a point. We do not even know his side of the story. We... literally... know.... nothing.

I am unsure why you would doubt her version of events. In any event, even assuming he did not hear her talk, her remarks on her video were for future reference, in other words please don't hit in her like that, it makes her uncomfortable.

fatmammycat

axer wrote: »

Not the only one either as this was on the same page.

You do realise you don't always get to choose goole ads on sites, right?

King Mob

axer wrote: »

It seems quite hypocritical that this women who does not like being sexually objectified has no problem making money out of other women being sexually objectified.

Screenshot taken from here:

Those are google ads, people who own the website they are displayed on don't have much control on what's shown in those little boxes.

nozzferrahhtoo

fatmammycat wrote: »

I am unsure why you would doubt her version of events.

I doubt everything I have been offered zero evidence for. Its why I am on this forum and not the Christianity one given they practice the exact opposite approach over there :-)