Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

10-07-2011 04:18PM

pH wrote: »

I can't help but think that even with the strong disagreement on both sides, if the goalposts moved just a little bit, either way, we'd all end up on the same side.

I mean, if the request had been more sleazy, if there was attempted touching, if it used vulgarities, then I'm pretty sure we'd all be on the same side. What I'm saying is that we all can imagine an act/proposition we'd consider inappropriate in this "man & woman in a lift at 4am" context, and to be honest (for me) they're not a lot beyond "want to come back to my room for coffee", but for me personally they are beyond that line.

On the other side, what about if he'd waited until the doors open and then spoken? Or just in the corridor outside? Is that now OK, and if so is all this heated debate really about getting timing perfect in a 15 second window?

Or what about not requesting "coffee in his room", what if the request had been for a "date" the next evening, or a phone number or email - is that inappropriate too?

Is this just a very heated debate about drawing a very fine line, about expecting a man (presumably slightly tired and emotional) at 4am in the morning to get it exactly right, or am I missing something, is there a more general rule I'm missing here, governing how a man who's attracted to a woman may and may not approach her?

So why exactly do these hypothetical scenarios matter?

The guy asked her in that particular way in that particular situation, then Watson posted a video in which she stated that this made her uncomfortable and that guys wouldn't get why.

Everything else beyond this is irrelevant. She was not suggesting that men should never approach women, or saying that there are specific rules about it.

Then Dawkins made stupid, sexist and hypocritical remarks, which Watson then pointed out to highlight the issue of a subtle trend of sexism in the atheist and skeptic movements.

Since then people on this thread and else where are coming up with ridiculous strawmen of what Watson said and played dumb and made outright offensive comments to attack Watson and her points.

All the while doing their level best to avoid what Dawkins had said.

As I said: disappointing.

Ickle Magoo · 10-07-2011 04:50PM

pH wrote: »

....Is this just a very heated debate about drawing a very fine line, about expecting a man (presumably slightly tired and emotional) at 4am in the morning to get it exactly right, or am I missing something, is there a more general rule I'm missing here, governing how a man who's attracted to a woman may and may not approach her?

For me, anyway, it's simply having the manners and sufficient introspection to acknowledge and pay attention to basic social cues - and not make hypocritical claims that on this subject alone, because it suits us, someone should not be judged for ignoring the social cues we live every other aspect of our lives by.

I think this makes some very good points about the general furore and it's interesting that the subsequent comments about women, RW's looks and the outright indignation at the suggestion the right to seek out sex doesn't trump the right of others to be left alone are mirrored in this thread...

pH · 10-07-2011 05:06PM

King Mob wrote: »

So why exactly do these hypothetical scenarios matter?

Because Rebecca Watson isn't the centre of the universe, she's one woman among 3.5 billion who had one experience with a man which lies somewhere on a line of "appropriateness".

Whether this act was inappropriate or not can only be judged in the context of where appropriateness in this situation starts and ends - is this act in the set of "appropriate things a man can ask a woman" or not?

Everything else beyond this is irrelevant. She was not suggesting that men should never approach women, or saying that there are specific rules about it.

Well obviously she is, unless you're arguing that she only just doesn't want to be asked back for coffee at exactly 4am in that particular elevator in Dublin? Are you seriously saying this? There must be some rules that come into play.

Watson's main point hasn't even been addressed on this thread - that there are social situations where she (and other women) do not want to be ever thought of in a sexual context - they're there for their minds, intellect, skills, talents etc., and that any speech or action which "sexualizes" them is forbidden.

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.

I can take nothing else from that original comment that it's not really a complaint about the time and place, it's anything which identifies her as a possible sexual partner she's objecting to.

virmilitaris · 10-07-2011 05:18PM

King Mob wrote: »

Again, not what she said or implied, thus it's a strawman.
The strawman have gotten a lot worse.

She said a man came to her in an elevator at 4am in the morning and politely made a pass at her. No ?

She then made a video saying how this made her uncomfortable and guys shouldn't do this ? No ?

Quite clearly she was inferring that she was uncomfortable because of the potential danger involved. No ?

By 'guys' I will assume I am included in this group. By 'shouldn't do this' I will assume she meant making a pass at a girl in an elevator at 4am like what happened to her. No ?

So how have I misunderstood what she was saying ? Will you explain what she was saying ?

Was she saying it's fine to make a pass at a girl in an elevator at 4am ?
Was she saying she felt uncomfortable because of non-rape / other danger related reasons ?

And the entire time no-one seems willing to actually examine what Dawkins had said and why it was both sexist and hypocritical.

I don't give a damn what Dawkins said. I am not defending Dawkins.

10-07-2011 05:25PM

pH wrote: »

Because Rebecca Watson isn't the centre of the universe, she's one woman among 3.5 billion who had one experience with a man which lies somewhere on a line of "appropriateness".

Whether this act was inappropriate or not can only be judged in the context of where appropriateness in this situation starts and ends - is this act in the set of "appropriate things a man can ask a woman" or not?

This is getting beyond silly.
All she said is that she and other women can be uncomfortable in similar situations. It doesn't particularly matter whether or not you personally find it appropriate, especially when you're asking her for some sort of checklist for when it is appropriate which is plainly ridiculous.
All this nonsense about her being the centre of the universe and whether a hypothetical situation is pointless, dishonest and silly.

pH wrote: »

Well obviously she is, unless you're arguing that she only just doesn't want to be asked back for coffee at exactly 4am in that particular elevator in Dublin? Are you seriously saying this? There must be some rules that come into play.

You're being purposefully obtuse, I'm tired of pandering to people playing dumb to avoid points.

pH wrote: »

Watson's main point hasn't even been addressed on this thread - that there are social situations where she (and other women) do not want to be ever thought of in a sexual context - they're there for their minds, intellect, skills, talents etc., and that any speech or action which "sexualizes" them is forbidden.

That's not what she said, or implied.
It's another silly dishonest strawman.

Point to the exact quote where she said exactly this.

pH wrote: »

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.

Because this doesn't say anything of the sort.

pH wrote: »

I can take nothing else from that original comment that it's not really a complaint about the time and place, it's anything which identifies her as a possible sexual partner she's objecting to.

She points out one of the specific situations in which she might find a proposition inappropriate and uncomfortable.
She does not say anything about sexualising her or other people in other more appropriate ways.
Unless of course you believe that she's some sort of fem-nazi characture who never has sex and disapproves of it. But given how far some of the strawmen have gone we're probably not far from someone actually claiming that.

This isn't hard to grasp, and I don't believe that generally rational Atheists can't grasp it. All your and other's rambling about trying to "find out what's appropriate" has simply been an exercise to avoid the actual points she made and the stupid sexist ones Dawkins made.

Now I want you to specifically explain why you didn't even acknowledge my point about Dawkins' statements.

axer · 10-07-2011 05:26PM

King Mob wrote: »

So why exactly do these hypothetical scenarios matter?

Because people are trying to "get it" since so many guys are being accused of not "getting it"

King Mob wrote: »

The guy asked her in that particular way in that particular situation, then Watson posted a video in which she stated that this made her uncomfortable and that guys wouldn't get why.

Many women didn't get why too since they dont imagine the situation being uncomfortable.

King Mob wrote: »

Everything else beyond this is irrelevant. She was not suggesting that men should never approach women, or saying that there are specific rules about it.

She is clearly saying dont do x.

King Mob wrote: »

Then Dawkins made stupid, sexist and hypocritical remarks, which Watson then pointed out to highlight the issue of a subtle trend of sexism in the atheist and skeptic movements.

Dawkins was reacting to PZ Meyers' and Watsons remarks which included Watson endorsing Meyers' blog post.

King Mob wrote: »

Since then people on this thread and else where are coming up with ridiculous strawmen of what Watson said and played dumb and made outright offensive comments to attack Watson and her points.

Considering the way that Watson is attacking others she is fair game.

virmilitaris · 10-07-2011 05:26PM

King Mob wrote: »

The guy asked her in that particular way in that particular situation, then Watson posted a video in which she stated that this made her uncomfortable and that guys wouldn't get why.

No she didn't.

She said

http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/ wrote:

You may recall that I related an incident in which I was propositioned, and I said, “Guys, don’t do that.”

Word for word from her video. "..how it creeps me out when men sexualise me in that manner."

Everything else beyond this is irrelevant. She was not suggesting that men should never approach women, or saying that there are specific rules about it.

No she wasn't, that's true.

She claimed that in the situation she just related that men should not approach women like that. That it was creepy and that it was 'sexualising' her.

I find that to be sexist and insulting to men.

She said 'guys don't do that'. Well what is 'that' ? Is that literally approach her in an enclosed place in the early hours ?

What is 'that' ? What am I not supposed to do ?

10-07-2011 05:32PM

virmilitaris wrote: »

She said a man came to her in an elevator at 4am in the morning and politely made a pass at her. No ?

She then made a video saying how this made her uncomfortable and guys shouldn't do this ? No ?

Quite clearly she was inferring that she was uncomfortable because of the potential danger involved. No ?

By 'guys' I will assume I am included in this group. By 'shouldn't do this' I will assume she meant making a pass at a girl in an elevator at 4am like what happened to her. No ?

You're deliberately leaving out details because they go against your point.
I've posted these exact points several times and they are detailed in the video she made.
I've no interest in repeating them.

virmilitaris wrote: »

So how have I misunderstood what she was saying ? Will you explain what she was saying ?

I, others and Watson herself have done so, you're just refusing to listen and making vast, dishonest leaps to construct strawmen.

virmilitaris wrote: »

Was she saying she felt uncomfortable because of non-rape / other danger related reasons ?

No, again this has been detailed before several times, not repeating what you're clearly not interested in reading.

virmilitaris wrote: »

I don't give a damn what Dawkins said. I am not defending Dawkins.

But this is the point of the issue.
You've just been swept up in the silly distracting points made by others who don't want to examine what Dawkins said.

So can you at least tell us whether you think Dawkins' comments were sexist or hypocritical?

10-07-2011 05:36PM

axer wrote: »

Because people are trying to "get it" since so many guys are being accused of not "getting it"

And by trying to get it you mean make up lies, attack her character and accuse her of lies?

axer wrote: »

Dawkins was reacting to PZ Meyers' and Watsons remarks which included Watson endorsing Meyers' blog post.

So no comment about the actual comments themselves. Shocker.

axer wrote: »

Considering the way that Watson is attacking others she is fair game.

Well seeing as how people like you think it's ok to use dishonest tactics, I'm bowing out. I can't win when one side feels it's ok to lie cause she's fair game.

Turtwig · 10-07-2011 05:42PM

Well, I know it's early days yet but is there any chance we could overtake TOS N megathread?

virmilitaris · 10-07-2011 05:45PM

King Mob wrote: »

You're deliberately leaving out details because they go against your point.
I've posted these exact points several times and they are detailed in the video she made.
I've no interest in repeating them.

Link then ? Because I haven't seen them.

But this is the point of the issue.
You've just been swept up in the silly distracting points made by others who don't want to examine what Dawkins said.

It is not the point of the issue for me. The issue for me is Watson's original comments.

Dawkins making an ass of himself or not does not mean Watson was right.

So can you at least tell us whether you think Dawkins' comments were sexist or hypocritical?

Sure if you'll have the decency to answer mine.

What was Watson telling men 'not to do' ?

Was she saying that men should not proposition her (lone women) at 4 am (2am) on an elevator (empty subway platform) ?

What was the 'that' when she said 'guys don't do that' ?

Re Dawkins;
Yes his comments were wrong and I'm very surprised he came out with them. He seems to have just jumped in on the attack without looking. Especially his first post which was completely irrelevant.

I don't however think his comments were sexist, he tried to make a (irrelevant) point using very badly chosen language. He showed a lot of ignorance regarding the situation when he compared it to someone in the elevator chewing gum. I don't agree with him.

axer · 10-07-2011 05:49PM

King Mob wrote: »

And by trying to get it you mean make up lies, attack her character and accuse her of lies?

No, I mean asking questions to clarify what would have been acceptable behaviour. e.g. Was it timing that was the problem etc. to clarify where the actual problem was. This is the very same person that said in previous forum posts that she doesn't mind getting hit on thus we need to establish where exactly is the line between getting hit on (if this was even that) in a non-uncomfortable way and getting hit on in a way that makes her feel uncomfortable.

King Mob wrote: »

So no comment about the actual comments themselves. Shocker.

His comments were "stupid, sexist and hypocritical remarks" there simply said that the what watson experienced did not even make it onto the badness scale since it was so irrelevant.

King Mob wrote: »

Well seeing as how people like you think it's ok to use dishonest tactics, I'm bowing out. I can't win when one side feels it's ok to lie cause she's fair game.

Its fair game to go up against her and criticise her words/actions since she has no problem doing it with others.

smiles302 · 10-07-2011 06:01PM

Was she saying that men should not proposition her (lone women) at 4 am (2am) on an elevator (empty subway platform) ?

When you approached the woman on the empty subway platform did you immediately ask her to come back to your house or did you start a conversation?

10-07-2011 06:04PM

axer wrote: »

His comments were "stupid, sexist and hypocritical remarks" there simply said that the what watson experienced did not even make it onto the badness scale since it was so irrelevant.

So I'll take it you'll be of the opinion that Dawkins and others are being too thin skinned when some politician or someone makes a disparaging remark and they point out why this is wrong or explain how a blasphemy law is wrong, even though it doesn't actually physically harm anyone?
Cause on ascale with atheists being executed being on the top, that stuff does not even make it onto the badness scale....

Yahew · 10-07-2011 06:05PM

King Mob wrote: »

Well seeing as how people like you think

ad hominem

it's ok to use dishonest tactics, I'm bowing out.

a lie. He never said that.

I can't win when one side feels it's ok to lie cause she's fair game.

Again he never said it is ok to "iie". In fact that statement is a lie.

What a ridulous form of argument.

10-07-2011 06:09PM

Yahew wrote: »

ad hominem

a lie. He never said that.

Again he never said it is ok to "iie". In fact that statement is a lie.

What a ridulous form of argument.

Well my point was that people where using dishonest tactics, he said that she was fair game.
Not that no one was using such tactics, or that it was only some people using those tactics.
He said that she was fair game.

And given the pile of dishonest tactics, strawmen and outright lies on this thread, I really don't have to rely on his post to prove my point.

liamw · 10-07-2011 06:19PM

King Mob wrote: »

And given the pile of dishonest tactics, strawmen and outright lies on this thread, I really don't have to rely on his post to prove my point.

Pot. Kettle. Black. The amount of pro-RW posters that have come on here and strawmanned our position effectively saying 'you are saying she is not entitled to feel uncomfortable' far outweighs any strawmanning from the other side. I have also been accused (I think) of being irrational and hypocritical and you have as yet failed to point out where this hypocrisy lies.

My point was very simple. This entire incident is insignificant and inconsequential. I never once commented on Dawkin's perspective - to be honest I don't care what Dawkins said.

The only thing that annoyed me is the fact that Watson made a sweeping generalization that about how guys should and shouldn't proposition women. You can argue she was only speaking from her own perspective; in that case I have no opinion on the matter whatsoever, she can blog away about all the things that make her feel uncomfortable whether they be sour sweets or guys propositioning her in particular circumstances.

virmilitaris · 10-07-2011 06:22PM

smiles302 wrote: »

When you approached the woman on the empty subway platform did you immediately ask herk to your house or did you start a conversation?

So the whole problem is 'how' he propositioned her? If he tried to have a conversation first the proposition would have been fine?

No of course I didn't immediately ask her back to mine.

Ickle Magoo · 10-07-2011 06:23PM

Why "of course"...?

virmilitaris · 10-07-2011 06:33PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why "of course"...?

Are you going to answer any of the questions I put to you or just pop in and ask me some now and again?

"Of course" because;

1. My place was an hour away. I had no idea where she lived.
2. There was no rush because we were getting the same train.

If however I found myself in a similar situation riding in an elevator knowing she was staying in the same hotel and knowing I had less time than the elevator ride to make my case then I likely would have made a pass similar to the one we're discussing.

So is the fact he just asked her really quickly the problem? Is that the magic 'dont do that guys'?

smiles302 · 10-07-2011 06:33PM

So the whole problem is 'how' he propositioned her? If he tried to have a conversation first the proposition would have been fine?

No of course I didn't immediately ask her back to mine.

You know intuitively it's be odd for you to turn to her and immediately ask her back to yours (or your hotel room).

If I was in the elevator and he asked me within the first 2 sentences he said to me that I was invited back to his hotel room I would be very wary and uncomfortable.

Not because he's a man. But because he's a man who is acting weirdly.

Zombrex · 10-07-2011 06:38PM

There are so many representations of RW comments flying around (on this site and in the blog-o-sphere) that it is getting a bit hard to keep up.

One thing I'm pretty sure of, I don't think RW really understood herself why she really was upset about elevator guy and commented on it.

Why do I say that? Because the argument seems to be morphing before my eyes as I read and watch back over what has been said.

RW original position seems to have been equating viewing someone sexually as misogyny and sexism. She complained in her talk at the conference about the 'fan' mail she gets where her fans describe sexual things they wish to do to here. She equates this with sexism and misogyny, which seems some what of a mis-classification.

While I think it is some what creepy, and I certainly wouldn't like my email full of this crap, I struggle at it being an example of sexism. I don't think these guys hate RW, any more than an obsessive fan who writes to George Clooney about running away and marrying him hates men.

So there seems to be an underlying position that viewing her sexually is sexist and hateful. I would suspect that this is simply misclassification on her part, similar to how 'racist' or 'terrorist' is a classically misused term. RW finds it creepy to get these sorts of emails, and creepy must mean they are bad, and well misogyny is bad isn't it, so it must be misogyny.

Here initial complaint with elevator guy was that he obviously didn't get that. TBH I don't blame him, it is not a particularly coherent argument.

I don't think it is a particularly coherent argument to even those who sided with her, which is why the argument seemed to morph rather quickly into an argument about threat and safety, which doesn't really seem to have been what Watson was actually complaining about originally.

Perhaps even RW sees this as she seems to have thrown her weight behind this position, while the original position was that she was being sexually objectified. It is far easier to defend RW in the context of a possible rape situation than it is to defend her in a possible sexually objectified situation.

Now it is impossible to tell what exactly RD is responding to, other than simply the idea that what ever argument RW was making this is a trivial non-event.

It is funny how vicious the responses to RD have been, from the same people complaining how vicious responses to RW are. The position seems to be you are either with us or you are a woman hating misognist.

Is it any wonder some people, both men and women, seem to find this sort of argument through blackmail tiresome and unnecessary. Dawkins made a point. You can say that he did it crudely, you can say he doesn't get it. But saying it means if he doesn't get it is has a misogynist is ridiculous

virmilitaris · 10-07-2011 06:41PM

smiles302 wrote: »

You know intuitively it's be odd for you to turn to her and immediately ask her back to yours (or your hotel room).

If I was in the elevator and he asked me within the first 2 sentences he said to me that I was invited back to his hotel room I would be very wary and uncomfortable.

Not because he's a man. But because he's a man who is acting weirdly.

Right so now its because he propositioned her in the first 2 sentences? Is that the magic formula for what we are not supposed to do?

Could you explain the proper way to proposition a woman during a 30 second to 2 minute elevator trip then?

smiles302 · 10-07-2011 07:02PM

Right so now its because he propositioned her in the first 2 sentences? Is that the magic formula for what we are not supposed to do?

Could you explain the proper way to proposition a woman during a 30 second to 2 minute elevator trip then?

There is no magic formula.

But even if it is only a 2 minute elevator ride, she isn't going to walk away if she is interested and you appear interested in her. If he reaches his floor first, all it would take is a mention he'd like to continue the conversation.

bnt · 10-07-2011 07:10PM

My only contribution to this "debate" has been to doubt that Dawkins actually posted those messages with his name on them, but I seem to be wrong about that. I simply saw no need for him to say anything at all in response to what Skepchick said. It's not the first time he's put his foot in his mouth, either e.g. his insulting remarks about the flight attendant who wore a cross at work.

And so we can expect the inevitable gloating from the Xtians: "ooh, look, the atheists are revolting, they're turning on their leaders", at which point we have to explain - yet again - that Dawkins is not a "leader", and we are not "followers". Though I don't quite understand why he wrote The God Delusion, I'm glad he did, since it serves to bring together most of the religion-related issues of the day under one cover - and he's a fine writer when he has an editor to watch the language. That's enough for me.

strobe · 10-07-2011 07:19PM

smiles302 wrote: »

If he reaches his floor first, all it would take is a mention he'd like to continue the conversation.

Like ask her if she wanted to have a cup of coffee and talk more? Something along those lines?

smiles302 · 10-07-2011 07:23PM

Like ask her if she wanted to have a cup of coffee and talk more? Something along those lines?

And the difference between coffee and coffee in his hotel room is what would leave me personally uncomfortable.

strobe · 10-07-2011 07:25PM

smiles302 wrote: »

And the difference between coffee and coffee in his hotel room is what would leave me personally uncomfortable.

That's grand you can feel however you want to feel. But where to get coffee at 4am in a hotel that would be more convenient than the hotel room a few seconds walk away is lost on me.

Personally I think coffee and conversation was the last thing on his mind but again you are trying to bring it back to the implication that people are saying a woman has no right to feel uncomfortable in that situation when no one is claiming that and not all women would. She might have been up for a romp, some women are. He who hesitates masturbates and all that. :pac:

Ickle Magoo · 10-07-2011 07:27PM

virmilitaris wrote: »

Are you going to answer any of the questions I put to you or just pop in and ask me some now and again?

Am I going to indulge the straw-peopling and desperate attempts to make out that elevatorman's actions are being the same as a heap of other patently different scenarios thatnothing like that which RW made comment on? That would be a no.

virmilitaris wrote: »

"Of course" because;

1. My place was an hour away. I had no idea where she lived.
2. There was no rush because we were getting the same train.

If however I found myself in a similar situation riding in an elevator knowing she was staying in the same hotel and knowing I had less time than the elevator ride to make my case then I likely would have made a pass similar to the one we're discussing.

So is the fact he just asked her really quickly the problem? Is that the magic 'dont do that guys'?

So it wasn't the same situation - and you didn't do the same thing - so we'll never know how that would have panned out - will we?

Surely a modicum of social tact and reading of that particular situation is the key? No magic. Posters have asked to be shown what they aren't understanding - I'm trying my best to oblige.

As per the link I gave earlier...

(A few of Rebecca’s critics, including some women, have said she is wrong to be generalizing and that she isn’t entitled to speak for all women. No kidding. Still, from my conversations, I think it’s disingenuous to argue that Rebecca’s feelings about being approached in an elevator at night don’t reflect those of most women—certainly enough to justify the rule of thumb. If anybody wants to pull together an empirical case to the contrary, knock yourself out. And if you happen to find yourself in an elevator with an appealing stranger who’s drooling for your attentions, have fun. But most of the time, Rebecca’s advice holds.)

smiles302 · 10-07-2011 07:35PM

That's grand you can feel however you want to feel. But where to get coffee at 4am in a hotel that would be more convenient than the hotel room a few seconds walk away is lost on me.

Chatting in the hallway is an option. And if both parties are getting along that's when an invite for further conversation would be appropriate in my book.

Even if he just wanted coffee and I did go back to his room after the second sentence we could be left sitting there with no idea what to talk about or just generally not click. That'd be one situation I'd be trying to avoid in her shoes.

I would be uncomfortable being asked to judge the man's intentions/character with such a small amount of time.

Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Comments