Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

amacachi

King Mob wrote: »

Yup that's exactly what I did. The :pac: proves how serious I am. That's supposed to be me eating away at women's rights....:rolleyes:

Any kind of hitting on women shows you think they're lower status people apparently. The :pac: could just be a slight shield to make yourself look slightly less threatening to the shrinking violets.

King Mob

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This may be the point that you want to address. That does not mean that the politicisation of one person's feelings on one particular occasion is not a point that others are interested in.

But it's the point that started all this.
It's the point that Watson actually made, everything else has been strawmen and exaggerations by other people.

She has not and did not say any of the following:
That all men are rapists in waiting.
That all women are terrified of men.
That the guy in the lift was going to rape her.
That she felt that he might have raped her.
That the guy was some how evil for asking her.
That no one should ever proposition anyone.

All she said was that the situation in those circumstances was uncomfortable.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And I would suggest that the propositioning of a near stranger at 4am after long drinking sessions in hotels is rather more common than the propositioning, stone cold sober, of people that are well known to each other, in the middle of the afternoon at the office. It's not like it was an unusual situation.

Just because it's common or mostly inoffensive doesn't mean it doesn't make it not uncomfortable for some. Nor does it mean that someone can't express how it does make it uncomfortable.
And it most certainly doesn't mean that people (especially men like me or Dawkins) can accuse a woman of being overly sensitive or a scheming attention whore based on exaggerations and strawmen of that argument.

King Mob

amacachi wrote: »

Any kind of hitting on women shows you think they're lower status people apparently. The :pac: could just be a slight shield to make yourself look slightly less threatening to the shrinking violets.

It was a joke.
One that most people seem to have gotten.

No one is of the position that hitting on women makes them a lower class.

I assure you that it was harmless parody that I couldn't help but make.

Ickle Magoo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This may be the point that you want to address. That does not mean that the politicisation of one person's feelings on one particular occasion is not a point that others are interested in.

And I would suggest that the propositioning of a near stranger at 4am after long drinking sessions in hotels is rather more common than the propositioning, stone cold sober, of people that are well known to each other, in the middle of the afternoon at the office. It's not like it was an unusual situation.

They clearly are interested, or we wouldn't be having this conversation...and even if they weren't interested, she still has the right to express her feelings on the matter.

[Apparently making the assumption drink was involved is a sexist no-no...a previous poster was quite insistent on that point].

I would suspect that the very fact it isn't an unusual situation is a huge part of the point she's making. Had it been a once off and had no other woman ever felt threatened, intimidated, uncomfortable, etc, by a stranger propositioning them uninvited under such circumstances, then her feeling uncomfortable would be a complete mystery to us all - except to most it isn't...the initial sentiments expressed are perfectly understandable to most.

It's the subsequent comment made by others that twisted everything around and suddenly it's some damn feminazi having the gall to feel uncomfortable at a stranger following her after she says her good-nights to proposition her in a lift at 4am. Disappointing, to say the least, especially in this usually cognizant forum.

amacachi

King Mob wrote: »

No one is of the position that hitting on women makes them a lower class.

First couple of paragraphs in the PZ Meyers link in the OP?

I assure you that it was harmless parody that I couldn't help but make.

Well I also thought it was harmless but I'm sure that someone who does think that hitting on people relegates them to a lower status would be horrified by someone "jokingly" doing it.

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

Actually, does this mean Robindch was propositioning me when he invited me out for a drink in another bar after the last skeptics in the pub meeting?

Nah, I was just out to meet Miss Homeopath

King Mob

amacachi wrote: »

First couple of paragraphs in the PZ Meyers link in the OP?

I don't think he was being serious either.

amacachi wrote: »

Well I also thought it was harmless but I'm sure that someone who does think that hitting on people relegates them to a lower status would be horrified by someone "jokingly" doing it.

I think it's clear from the context of my other posts where I stand on the matter, and if anyone is really offended by the post, that's where I'll be directing them.

Monty Burnz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's the subsequent comment made by others that twisted everything around and suddenly it's some damn feminazi having the gall to feel uncomfortable at a stranger following her after she says her good-nights to proposition her in a lift at 4am. Disappointing, to say the least, especially in this usually cognizant forum.

But why then does she link Dawkin's dismissal of her episode with:

I’ve had more and more messages from men who tell me what they’d like to do to me, sexually. More and more men touching me without permission at conferences. More and more threats of rape from those who don’t agree with me, even from those who consider themselves skeptics and atheists.

...rather than stating that she was just talking about her own feelings, and that others might have not been bothered by or would even have welcomed the proposition?

And how about where she introduces her own straw man and suggests Dawkins was being offensive to those who have been raped or sexually assaulted?

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. Feminists in the west have been staunch allies of the women being brutalized elsewhere, and they’ve done a hell of a lot more than Richard Dawkins when it comes to making a difference in their lives.

amacachi

King Mob wrote: »

I don't think he was being serious either.

Don't be ridiculous, it's on the internet.

Monty Burnz

King Mob wrote: »

All she said was that the situation in those circumstances was uncomfortable.

I've no problem with that. Much like I might mention someone was sitting opposite me, eating with their mouth open.

King Mob wrote: »

Just because it's common or mostly inoffensive doesn't mean it doesn't make it not uncomfortable for some. Nor does it mean that someone can't express how it does make it uncomfortable.

Yup.

King Mob wrote: »

And it most certainly doesn't mean that people (especially men like me or Dawkins) can accuse a woman of being overly sensitive or a scheming attention whore based on exaggerations and strawmen of that argument.

He acccused her of that?

Well, if I had been at a conference dinner, and I'd complained about this person eating with their mouth open* sitting opposite me, and someone posted a reply dismissing this complaint, saying "there are millions around the world going hungry, but your burden is much greater", I'd probably be a bit annoyed with them. It trivialises my suffering.

*we've already established that this behaviour makes me uncomfortable

Monty Burnz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think acting on the presumption that she may be one of those fast women they have in 'Merica might be the crux of the issue that made her uncomfortable, you know?

By the way, that bit was a joke and should probably have been politely ignored (much like a fart in a restaurant) if it didn't raise a mental smile.

Ickle Magoo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But why then does she link Dawkin's dismissal of her episode with:

I’ve had more and more messages from men who tell me what they’d like to do to me, sexually. More and more men touching me without permission at conferences. More and more threats of rape from those who don’t agree with me, even from those who consider themselves skeptics and atheists

...rather than stating that she was just talking about her own feelings, and that others might have not been bothered by or would even have welcomed the proposition?

She's still talking about her experiences - you can either take her at her word that what she is saying is true or you can consider her a liar. As awful a thought as it is and as unfair as it is to the majority of men, there is good reason why women may feel uncomfortable being propositioned by strangers in confined areas.

She also isn't responsible for ensuring the fictional handful of women you presume would have leapt at the offer of coffee from a stranger, in their hotel room at 4 am get a mention when describing her discomfort at a factual event.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And how about where she introduces her own straw man and suggests Dawkins was being offensive to those who have been raped or sexually assaulted?

That's still her views and ones she is entitled to have - making out that a women has no right to feel uncomfortable in the situation RW was put in because women suffer elsewhere has certainly considerably lowered my opinion of dawkins.

Count Duckula

I don't think anyone's denying that she feels uncomfortable, and that - given that she does feel uncomfortable - that she shouldn't make that point.

The problem is, why does she feel uncomfortable? That's the issue a lot of us are taking issue at, I think. As I say, the thought that my being alone in a lift with someone else late at night makes them uncomfortable offends me. The reason they are uncomfortable is because they don't trust me and they fear the worst. They feel I might be a sexual predator, and so they treat me as such until proven otherwise.

That is offensive, and in my opinion just as bad as the assumption that all women are stupid / lower class / only good for sex that feminists fight against.

King Mob

Monty Burnz wrote: »

He acccused her of that?

Not Dawkins, but others here and elsewhere.
For example:

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This is exactly what Skepchick ought to have done - got over herself. However, since she makes her living out of her attention-seeking, of course she's not going to do that. She's going to blow hot air into this until it's garnered her plenty of lucrative hits on her website and loads of nice invitations to conferences in nice places. Dawkins' only mistake here was fuelling her flame of self-promotion.

As well as the few people who insinuated that the guy in the lift might be fictional.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I've no problem with that. Much like I might mention someone was sitting opposite me, eating with their mouth open.

....

Well, if I had been at a conference dinner, and I'd complained about this person eating with their mouth open* sitting opposite me, and someone posted a reply dismissing this complaint, saying "there are millions around the world going hungry, but your burden is much greater", I'd probably be a bit annoyed with them. It trivialises my suffering.

*we've already established that this behaviour makes me uncomfortable

But I think you'd agree that rape and the objectification of women is a bigger issue.

Monty Burnz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

She's still talking about her experiences - you can either take her at her word that what she is saying is true or you can consider her a liar.

Please stop pretending I have an issue with her being uncomfortable. Try to address what I am actually saying, rather than what is easy to disagree with.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

She also isn't responsible for ensuring the fictional handful of women you presume would have leapt at the offer of coffee from a stranger, in their hotel room at 4 am get a mention when describing her discomfort at a factual event.

These women are not fictional. Have you ever been to a wedding?? We can argue about the proportion of women who would accept such a proposition, but let's not call them 'fictional' as if they are like dragons or something and don't exist at all.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That's still her views and ones she is entitled to have - making out that a women has no right to feel uncomfortable in the situation RW was put in because women suffer elsewhere has certainly considerably lowered my opinion of dawkins.

Who argued that she had no right to feel uncomfortable?

King Mob

Count Duckula wrote: »

I don't think anyone's denying that she feels uncomfortable, and that - given that she does feel uncomfortable - that she shouldn't make that point.

The problem is, why does she feel uncomfortable? That's the issue a lot of us are taking issue at, I think. As I say, the thought that my being alone in a lift with someone else late at night makes them uncomfortable offends me. The reason they are uncomfortable is because they don't trust me and they fear the worst. They feel I might be a sexual predator, and so they treat me as such until proven otherwise.

That is offensive, and in my opinion just as bad as the assumption that all women are stupid / lower class / only good for sex that feminists fight against.

But you're leaving out key details, like it being 4 am, them being alone and the guy propositioning her.

At no point did she say that she though this guy was a sexual predator or that she thinks all men are.
That's something you're inferring all by yourself.

Count Duckula

King Mob wrote: »

But you're leaving out key details, like it being 4 am, them being alone and the guy propositioning her.

At no point did she say that she though this guy was a sexual predator or that she thinks all men are.
That's something you're inferring all by yourself.

So, if it was nothing to do with a fear of the guy being a sexual predator, why was she uncomfortable?

Ickle Magoo

Count Duckula wrote: »

I don't think anyone's denying that she feels uncomfortable, and that - given that she does feel uncomfortable - that she shouldn't make that point.

The problem is, why does she feel uncomfortable? That's the issue a lot of us are taking issue at, I think. As I say, the thought that my being alone in a lift with someone else late at night makes them uncomfortable offends me. The reason they are uncomfortable is because they don't trust me and they fear the worst. They feel I might be a sexual predator, and so they treat me as such until proven otherwise.

That is offensive, and in my opinion just as bad as the assumption that all women are stupid / lower class / only good for sex that feminists fight against.

So why do you think some women may feel uncomfortable at being propositioned in a confined area? Serious question...

On one-hand there is a constant stream of reminders that women shouldn't be walking home through dodgy areas, should dress appropriately and let people know where they are going, etc, etc [ironically often from the same people that cry foul if women do feel uncomfortable] - and yet at the same time an expectation that women should never feel uncomfortable at being propositioned, regardless of the circumstances. You can't have it both ways - there clearly ARE times when women are not safe and expecting them to tally in their head the likelihood of this particular encounter leading to/not leading to assault because to do otherwise is just insulting to all men is just silly. We trust those we know, we are wary of those we don't - I think that's a fairly universal view.

If you want to blame someone for women feeling they aren't safe - blame those who do make it unsafe and ensure many women think about their personal safety and nervously clock possible exits in these situations when perhaps they should just be feeling flattered.

sink

Count Duckula wrote: »

I don't think anyone's denying that she feels uncomfortable, and that - given that she does feel uncomfortable - that she shouldn't make that point.

The problem is, why does she feel uncomfortable? That's the issue a lot of us are taking issue at, I think. As I say, the thought that my being alone in a lift with someone else late at night makes them uncomfortable offends me. The reason they are uncomfortable is because they don't trust me and they fear the worst. They feel I might be a sexual predator, and so they treat me as such until proven otherwise.

That is offensive, and in my opinion just as bad as the assumption that all women are stupid / lower class / only good for sex that feminists fight against.

Take the sexual element out of it for a second. Say you were standing in a lift at 4am in a strange city with a complete stranger who you had not shared a word with before and they said "Don't take this the wrong way but I couldn't help noticing what a nice watch you have, would you mind if I tried it on?". Is wrong to have doubts about this polite persons motives? There is not a rational person who would not immediately think "thief" and feel deeply uncomfortable.

Monty Burnz

King Mob wrote: »

But I think you'd agree that rape and the objectification of women is a bigger issue.

I certainly would. But isn't that a red herring that was introduced by SkepChick when her discomfort was dismissed?

Ickle Magoo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Please stop pretending I have an issue with her being uncomfortable. Try to address what I am actually saying, rather than what is easy to disagree with.

These women are not fictional. Have you ever been to a wedding?? We can argue about the proportion of women who would accept such a proposition, but let's not call them 'fictional' as if they are like dragons or something and don't exist at all.

Who argued that she had no right to feel uncomfortable? Holy crap. Please read my posts again. Must try harder.

Good grief, it's like the baby in the jungle all over again...you were right the first time, ignore is best.

King Mob

Count Duckula wrote: »

So, if it was nothing to do with a fear of the guy being a sexual predator, why was she uncomfortable?

There might have been a little of that.
Along with the social awkwardness of staying in the lift till her floor with the guy she just turned down.
And with the offence she might have felt that the guy would think that such a proposition was appropriate and she'd be receptive.

But this doesn't mean she though he was a definitely a predator or that he was planning to do anything along those lines.
Nor does it mean that she thinks this all the time when she talks to any men normally.

amacachi

Do yous reckon it's too late to go to the Gardaí about the "coffee morning" a teacher invited us to 5 years ago?

Monty Burnz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Good grief, it's like the baby in the jungle all over again...you were right the first time, ignore is best.

What?? You said this:

She's still talking about her experiences - you can either take her at her word that what she is saying is true or you can consider her a liar.

At no point did I not take her at her word. Can you explain more clearly what you were trying to say?

And your failure to understand reasoning by analogy is not relevant here.

King Mob

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I certainly would. But isn't that a red herring that was introduced by SkepChick when her discomfort was dismissed?

No, because it's linked to her discomfort.
Furthermore the comments made by Dawkins which dismiss her indicated a worrying hint of sexism and hypocrisy.

Monty Burnz

King Mob wrote: »

There might have been a little of that.
Along with the social awkwardness of staying in the lift till her floor with the guy she just turned down.
And with the offence she might have felt that the guy would think that such a proposition was appropriate and she'd be receptive.

But this doesn't mean she though he was a definitely a predator or that he was planning to do anything along those lines.
Nor does it mean that she thinks this all the time when she talks to any men normally.

So why does she introduce the subject of rape and sexual assault here? And she doesn't mention any of the other stuff you suggest...?

Monty Burnz

King Mob wrote: »

No, because it's linked to her discomfort.
Furthermore the comments made by Dawkins which dismiss her indicated a worrying hint of sexism and hypocrisy.

A guy hit on her. She was uncomfortable about it. Dawkins made out that it was no big deal.

That's more or less the story. There are no heroes or villains in this story as far as I can tell.

King Mob

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So why does she introduce the subject of rape and sexual assault here? And she doesn't mention any of the other stuff you suggest...?

Because as detailed in the article Dawkins made an inappropriate joke about rape and goes onto to detail the violent sexual threats she and the other skepchick writers receive as well as less than appropriate comments and attitudes she has experienced in the skeptic and atheist movements.

Now is there any comment she herself made that shows she thought the guy in the lift was a sexual predator or is it all being inferred by other people?

King Mob

Monty Burnz wrote: »

A guy hit on her. She was uncomfortable about it. Dawkins made out that it was no big deal.

That's more or less the story. There are no heroes or villains in this story as far as I can tell.

And in the process of saying "it was no big deal" Dawkins made pretty sexist and hypocritical statements.

Monty Burnz

King Mob wrote: »

Because as detailed in the article Dawkins made an inappropriate joke about rape

He did?? I must have missed that bit - can you detail it or link it please? It might put a different complexion on the story.

King Mob wrote: »

and goes onto to detail the violent sexual threats she and the other skepchick writers receive as well as less than appropriate comments and attitudes she has experienced in the skeptic and atheist movements.

Well clearly anyone making such threats is a psycho, it's indefensible. But there's still a world of difference between morons emailing that type of rubbish to you and the awful things that happen to women in less developed parts of the world.

King Mob wrote: »

Now is there any comment she herself made that shows she thought the guy in the lift was a sexual predator or is it all being inferred by other people?

I guess they are inferring it due to her linking the event to rape and sexual assault in her blog post.