Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

yawha · 07-07-2011 3:17pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I get uncomfortable when people eat with their mouths open.

If you make a blog post where you express your dislike for people eating with their mouths open and ask for people to stop doing it, are you expressing hatred for or denouncing the morals of people who do it?

mewso · 07-07-2011 3:18pm

Galvasean wrote: »

on more than one ocassion I've been out in bars chatting up to a woman, only for her to say something along the lines of, "Oh, I'm so tired. Think I'll go back to my apartment/house" (often while batting the eyelids). So you follow her out, hop in a taxi together, SHAZAM! She's got you in the sack.

Knew I was doing something wrong. Mental note: read between the lines do not say ok see ye.

Monty Burnz · 07-07-2011 3:23pm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think people acting out of self-interest or are unthinking are "wrong" - it was just inappropriate and made her feel uncomfortable. I think women who would take up a the offer of coffee in the hotel room of a stranger they just got into a lift with at 4 am would be in a distinct minority, tbh.

Perhaps in a minority - sure you wouldn't know with the fast women they have in 'Merica these days...

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think it is specifically a feminist issue either - beyond RW being a feminist...and perhaps how right she was that a lot of men wouldn't or couldn't understand why it made her so uncomfortable.

I've no problem with her feeling uncomfortable, and can quite well understand it.

It's when someone tries to politicise this sort of thing that it gets a bit silly. I'd quite happily live in a world where women proposition men and take the (high) risk of rejection, and we sit back and reject or accept as we see fit - but I presume that men would be the bad guys in that world too for making the women do the chasing.

Monty Burnz · 07-07-2011 3:24pm

yawha wrote: »

If you make a blog post where you express your dislike for people eating with their mouths open and ask for people to stop doing it, are you expressing hatred for or denouncing the morals of people who do it?

Well, if I link it to the oppression of my gender and threats to rape me, then probably yes.

Ickle Magoo · 07-07-2011 3:40pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Perhaps in a minority - sure you wouldn't know with the fast women they have in 'Merica these days...

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?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I've no problem with her feeling uncomfortable, and can quite well understand it.

It's when someone tries to politicise this sort of thing that it gets a bit silly. I'd quite happily live in a world where women proposition men and take the (high) risk of rejection, and we sit back and reject or accept as we see fit - but I presume that men would be the bad guys in that world too for making the women do the chasing.

I don't recall anyone having said men shouldn't approach women or that women shouldn't also proposition men...

I think the point continually being missed in favour of a variety of strawmen and red-herrings is 4 am, in a lift, alone and a stranger probably isn't it the best time to do such propositioning - and may well make the lady you are propositioning feel uncomfortable. That is all - nothing more, nothing less. Why she felt uncomfortable and also why women are often uber safety concious is an already politicized topic.

yawha · 07-07-2011 3:41pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well, if I link it to the oppression of my gender and threats to rape me, then probably yes.

But she didn't. All she did was express that it made her uncomfortable...

drg85 · 07-07-2011 3:44pm

I'm wading into this a bit late on boards, but to be honest the whole issue irks me somewhat. The whole issue is a storm is a teacup I feel! Whatever about RW's reaction or over reaction if you think that, I'm more disappointed with the likes of PZ Myers and Bad astronomer thinking they have the right to lecture people on how to interact with women; at one stage they state all women are afraid of men.

I find this INSULTING to women - perhaps my friends are a poor sample group but when I asked my female friends if they were afraid of men, they answered in the negative. Secondly, being male or female is not a sole indicator of who you are; there are 3 billion men and women, all of whom are different. You cannot say "all women x" no more than you can say "all men x". It's a presumptious position which can be easily refuted. The implication that all men are threats to women is in itself sexist, and as someone who thinks we should strive towards gender equality, something I would reject.

The guy in question could merely have been socially inept, just friendly or clumsy - in any case, it was politely rebuffed. Rebecca Watson has the right to feel uncomfortable, but not the right to presume her feelings will be shared by the entirity of humans. Sorry if I'm rambling on this, it's such a minor issue. What I do feel is disgraceful is how Rebecca Watson handled a female student who challenged her - Stef McGraw - http://goo.gl/uygSF

To recap, it's out of proportion I feel. But when I suggested to science writer Ed Yong that perhaps the incident was overblown, he publically lambasted me on twitter and implied I was somehow sexist. I was mortified, and backed down - it was particularly hurtful when I'd spent my saturday protesting at the counter prochoice demo and had just blogged about it. Since then I've removed myself somewhat. Seems people can't be rational about issues of gender and it's too emotive for sense. I'm more disappointed that science writers I respect are equating critical analysis with sexism in these cases

King Mob · 07-07-2011 3:48pm

amacachi wrote: »

Well done, you just hit on them and therefore have shown your true colours in thinking that they're lower-status people.

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:

Monty Burnz · 07-07-2011 3:49pm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think the point continually being missed in favour of a variety of strawmen and red-herrings is 4 am, in a lift, alone and a stranger probably isn't it the best time to do such propositioning - and may well make the lady you are propositioning feel uncomfortable. That is all - nothing more, nothing less.

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.

Monty Burnz · 07-07-2011 3:53pm

yawha wrote: »

But she didn't. All she did was express that it made her uncomfortable...

She does here. She suggests that Dawkin's dismissal of the 'episode' is all part of the same rape/oppression picture.

amacachi · 07-07-2011 3:56pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:00pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:04pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:06pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:08pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:10pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:13pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:15pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:17pm

King Mob wrote: »

I don't think he was being serious either.

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

Monty Burnz · 07-07-2011 4:22pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:26pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:27pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:30pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:32pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:33pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:35pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:37pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:40pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:40pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:42pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:43pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:45pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:45pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:48pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:48pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:50pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:52pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:57pm

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 · 07-07-2011 4:59pm

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 · 07-07-2011 5:06pm

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.

Monty Burnz · 07-07-2011 5:08pm

King Mob wrote: »

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

Sorry, I may be missing part of the story here - the only thing I've seen from Dawkins was the satirical post on the PZ blog where he contrasted her situation with the situation of women elsewhere.

King Mob · 07-07-2011 5:21pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

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.

Sorry should have typed "sexual abuse" in reference to the female circumcision.
Still pretty inappropriate.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

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.

Yes there is. And Rebecca Watson isn't trying to, or has said anything that lessens these things.
But there is no plausible reason at all for why they would mean that she is not allowed to mention lesser stuff or call out sexism she experiences.
Nor does the nastier stuff out in the world make the stuff she or any other person experiences any less hurtful or infuriating.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

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

But she doesn't actually link the incident to any in that subsequent article.
The people inferring the connection are doing all by themselves and using at as excuse to ignore her points.
No where has she ever stated or implied that the guy in the lift was a predator or that all men are, contrary to what some posters her are saying she believes.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Sorry, I may be missing part of the story here - the only thing I've seen from Dawkins was the satirical post on her blog where he contrasted her situation with the situation of women elsewhere.

Well the first post, the point of which is that Watson doesn't really have the right to complain is the first example of his sexism. There is more as he accuses her of over reacting and being overly sensitive.
The second post shows hypocrisy because he refers to the incident as "just words".
Just like how teaching kids religion is "just words" yet he considers this child abuse.

Monty Burnz · 07-07-2011 5:42pm

King Mob wrote: »

Sorry should have typed "sexual abuse" in reference to the female circumcision.
Still pretty inappropriate.

I don't think that was inappropriate though - he was satirising the episode by contrasting really bad stuff with stuff that really wasn't all that bad. In that context, it was totally appropriate.

King Mob wrote: »

But there is no plausible reason at all for why they would mean that she is not allowed to mention lesser stuff or call out sexism she experiences.
Nor does the nastier stuff out in the world make the stuff she or any other person experiences any less hurtful or infuriating.

No dispute there.

King Mob wrote: »

But she doesn't actually link the incident to any in that subsequent article.
The people inferring the connection are doing all by themselves and using at as excuse to ignore her points.
No where has she ever stated or implied that the guy in the lift was a predator or that all men are, contrary to what some posters her are saying she believes.

Yeah, I think there's an element of the wrong people copping the blame for points other people have made. For example, this point - not made by SkepChick - frustrates me:

When there’s no way to know, you err on the side of safety. And what makes this worse is that most men don’t understand this, so women are constantly put into situations ranging from uncomfortable to downright scary.
Put even more simply: this wasn’t a guy chewing gum at her. This was a potential sexual assault.

The idea that somebody regards any time I'm in an elevator with a woman as a 'potential sexual assault' is really depressing, and demeaning of me as a man. This is similar to the situation where every man is regarded as a potential paedophile, and not being allowed to take photos of your own kids at the school sports day and so forth.

I already cross the road to avoid single women walking alone if I meet them on a quiet street so as not to accidentally intimidate them. Guilt by association, huh?

CiaranMT · 07-07-2011 5:44pm

Christ. Talk about a thread mirroring the very pile of much-ado-about-nothing which makes up its topic.

Monty Burnz · 07-07-2011 5:47pm

CiaranMT wrote: »

Christ. Talk about a thread mirroring the very pile of much-ado-about-nothing which makes up its topic.

Indeed. Some people getting very het up.

King Mob · 07-07-2011 6:03pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't think that was inappropriate though - he was satirising the episode by contrasting really bad stuff with stuff that really wasn't all that bad. In that context, it was totally appropriate.

Well you don't think it's inappropriate, but then it's not being used to portray you as being overly sensitive and having your point taken out of context then ignored.
And of course you haven't written extensively on female circumcision and other religiously fueled sexism either.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

No dispute there.

So then you surely realise how Dawkins comments are a bit sexist and hypocritical.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yeah, I think there's an element of the wrong people copping the blame for points other people have made. For example, this point - not made by SkepChick - frustrates me:

The idea that somebody regards any time I'm in an elevator with a woman as a 'potential sexual assault' is really depressing, and demeaning of me as a man. This is similar to the situation where every man is regarded as a potential paedophile, and not being allowed to take photos of your own kids at the school sports day and so forth.

I already cross the road to avoid single women walking alone if I meet them on a quiet street so as not to accidentally intimidate them. Guilt by association, huh?

But that's the thing, no is accusing men as a whole of being rapists-in-potentia that's the strawman being made by people so they can ignore the point.

Rebecca Watson wasn't uncomfortable because it was a man in a lift.
She was uncomfortable because it was a man in a lift at 4am, alone and just after he had propositioned her.

Everything else attributed to her beyond this one point has been the construct of other people inferring stuff that simply isn't there.

It's blown up because Dawkins said stupid, sexist and hypocritical stuff and some people are straining themselves to ignore this.

Nodin · 07-07-2011 6:08pm

King Mob wrote: »

Everything else attributed to her beyond this one point has been the construct of other people inferring stuff that simply isn't there.

.

She complained of the approach that she did not appreciate being 'sexually objectified', did she not?

fatmammycat · 07-07-2011 6:12pm

Nodin wrote: »

She complained of the approach that she did not appreciate being 'sexually objectified', did she not?

she said-
""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."

Monty Burnz · 07-07-2011 6:14pm

King Mob wrote: »

Well you don't think it's inappropriate, but then it's not being used to portray you as being overly sensitive and having your point taken out of context then ignored.
And of course you haven't written extensively on female circumcision and other religiously fueled sexism either.

That's shifting the point somewhat. What he said was appropriate in satirising her position. You are stating that satirising her position was inappropriate - you are entitled to think so.

King Mob wrote: »

So then you surely realise how Dawkins comments are a bit sexist and hypocritical.

No, I disagree on this. You can argue about his sensitivity, but I don't perceive that he was sexist.

King Mob wrote: »

But that's the thing, no is accusing men as a whole of being rapists-in-potentia that's the strawman being made by people so they can ignore the point.

This person is, for a start. I just quoted it for you!

King Mob wrote: »

Rebecca Watson wasn't uncomfortable because it was a man in a lift.
She was uncomfortable because it was a man in a lift at 4am, alone and just after he had propositioned her.

But I don't know if anyone is arguing that she wasn't entitled to feel uncomfortable. I certainly am not.

Nodin · 07-07-2011 6:15pm

fatmammycat wrote: »

she said-
""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."

"Richard Dawkins believes I should be a good girl and just shut up about being sexually objectified because it doesn’t bother him. Thanks, wealthy old heterosexual white man! "
http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/

Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Comments