Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Ickle Magoo · 13-07-2011 12:10PM

Okay - well, only listen to those who argued rape and think all men are potential rapists and and base your responses on that and see the topic remains polarised then, your call.

pH · 13-07-2011 12:14PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKAO_ieeqTo

This is quite good, and it's not heated or vitriolic. Make sure to watch the bit following the credits.

robindch · 13-07-2011 12:34PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Most aren't - at least she's conceded that much...it should be the vast majority aren't rapists but it's a start back on the road to rationality on that particular hot potato, at least.

I wouldn't even say that. I'd avoid mentioning "men" and "rapists" in the same sentence, to avoid linking them by proximity.

I'm sure Watson would get upset -- and she'd certainly be right to -- if somebody were to claim that "The vast majority of skepchicks aren't axe-wielding, child-molesting cannibals". Saying that the vast majority of men aren't rapists is an unhappily similar rhetorical trick, as I'm sure Watson knows quite well.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Would the most rational solution not be, yet again, somewhere in the middle?

I'd entirely agree with you, except I can't really see a middle position with respect to the view that "most men aren't rapists". By saying that, and by holding the view (all men are potential rapists), she is choosing to distrust men from the outset.

And there is no halfway house between choosing to distrust somebody and choosing to trust them. It's either one or the other.

And bearing that in mind, I think it would be stupid for any man, having been distrusted from the outset, to put himself into a position where his motives could be questioned.

It's simply not worth the risk.

.

liamw · 13-07-2011 12:39PM

robindch wrote: »

Hence, while I would have supported this kind of thing two weeks back, I certainly wouldn't be offering myself to be hugged today

I think you're probably taking this way too far. I reckon for 99.9% of men, there is no action here. I think Ickle and others are aguing, and correct me if I'm wrong, that a change of action only applies to men who lack the awareness to realise that propositioning a woman in a cold dark alley at 4am isn't the best idea.

This has nothing to do with rape, or sexism whatsoever in my opinion though. It's simply taking other's feelings into consideration in general.

This elevator incident specifically - ye, still a complete non-event.

robindch · 13-07-2011 12:48PM

liamw wrote: »

I think your probably taking this way too far. I reckon for 99.9% of men, there is no action here.

I'd say a lot less than 99.9%

But regardless of that, Watson has been unhappily uncompromising in her use of politics and language over the last ten days -- take a look at some of her comments in her Dawkins overflow thread, for example.

If she's going to start playing politics, well, it's not unreasonable that (at least some) people are going to batten down the hatches in response.

mewso · 13-07-2011 01:02PM

liamw wrote: »

I think you're probably taking this way too far. I reckon for 99.9% of men, there is no action here. I think Ickle and others are aguing, and correct me if I'm wrong, that a change of action only applies to men who lack the awareness to realise that propositioning a woman in a cold dark alley at 4am isn't the best idea.

This has nothing to do with rape, or sexism whatsoever in my opinion though. It's simply taking other's feelings into consideration in general.

This elevator incident specifically - ye, still a complete non-event.

I think what Robin is looking at here is the **** storm and why it happened more so than the elevator incident. Correct me if I'm wrong.

robindch · 13-07-2011 01:21PM

mewso wrote: »

more so than the elevator incident.

Yep. I completely agreed with Watson's initial video. It's her reactions following it that I find unhelpful.

axer · 13-07-2011 01:22PM

Lo and behold I called them out on their hypocrisy in a nice way on their website and unsurprisingly they did not approve the comments but deleted them instead. I guess they only like to see posts like "oh you are great".

virmilitaris · 13-07-2011 02:45PM

Watson wrote: »

"All men are not rapists. Most men aren’t, even!".

Shes not a misandrist then ickle ?

aidan24326 · 13-07-2011 04:58PM

Just coming to this now and I'm a bit out of the loop but could someone briefly eplain to me what actually happened here? And why this is even a story?

strobe · 13-07-2011 05:26PM

aidan24326 wrote: »

Just coming to this now and I'm a bit out of the loop but could someone briefly eplain to me what actually happened here? And why this is even a story?

Some girl complained about a guy hitting on her in an elevator. Some guy (guy A) with a blog went off on some weird rant about men hitting on women being the most blatant example of misogyny and sexism that could possible exist. Some other guy (guy

responded to guy A's rant by going on a weird hyperbolic rant of his very own but addressed it to some girl. Some girl freaked out and went on her own hyperbolic ad hominem rant at guy B. Then the freako 'feminists' that exist in internet land got involved and started ranting about everything and anything as they are prone to do, completely missing or deliberately misinterpreting all the points put across by some girl and guy B. In the midst of all this a few people made a few good points but they were drowned out by all the freakos.

...and here we are.

pH · 13-07-2011 05:56PM

aidan24326 wrote: »

Just coming to this now and I'm a bit out of the loop but could someone briefly eplain to me what actually happened here? And why this is even a story?

Oh let me!

Basic story is that a child abuse survivor and well a respected advocate of women's rights (with a proven and demonstrable track record in this field) is having his reputation tarnished as some sort of ignorant misogynistic privileged white guy by a gang of internet feminists because he had the temerity to express his opinion that a single woman's outrage that she was politely propositioned by man "in the wrong place" is less worthy a cause for advocacy than the terrible things (FGM/Stoning etc) facing many women in 2011.

Ickle Magoo · 13-07-2011 05:58PM

robindch wrote: »

I wouldn't even say that. I'd avoid mentioning "men" and "rapists" in the same sentence, to avoid linking them by proximity.

Ever? Just in blogs? Or do you mean the terminology should be

rapists <

> men

We shouldn't ever say men who rape or that man who raped or something to that effect? One should be a term for regular guys and the other should be a term for someone who rapes?...yeah, okay, I can understand that.

robindch wrote: »

I'm sure Watson would get upset -- and she'd certainly be right to -- if somebody were to claim that "The vast majority of skepchicks aren't axe-wielding, child-molesting cannibals". Saying that the vast majority of men aren't rapists is an unhappily similar rhetorical trick, as I'm sure Watson knows quite well.

I'm not sure I follow - I would imagine the instances of axe-wielding, child-molesting cannibalism are much less than the instances of rape and yet I wouldn't consider that an unreasonable statement.

robindch wrote: »

I'd entirely agree with you, except I can't really see a middle position with respect to the view that "most men aren't rapists". By saying that, and by holding the view (all men are potential rapists), she is choosing to distrust men from the outset.

And there is no halfway house between choosing to distrust somebody and choosing to trust them. It's either one or the other.

As lovely a sentiment as that may be, in reality I don't think it's as black and white. Perhaps I'm on my own here but I don't leave the keys in my car or my front door unlocked, either - would you? Oh noes! That means I think every passer-by must be burglar or a car thief!

I think it's being more than a little disingenuous to infer all but some of RW's fans are a little on the wary side of those they don't know, tbh.

robindch wrote: »

And bearing that in mind, I think it would be stupid for any man, having been distrusted from the outset, to put himself into a position where his motives could be questioned.

It's simply not worth the risk.

See, I think you are being deliberately obtuse - and that's not helpful either. If you want to move it from elevators and women being scared to you being scared of your reputation in a hugging convention, why not move it all the way over to childcare and who you'd leave your kid with...we can't assume everybody is out to hurt kids so we'll just leave them with anybody, won't we?....No?

virmilitaris wrote:

Shes not a misandrist then ickle ?

She may well be - but that statement on it's own wouldn't qualify as proof.

liamw · 13-07-2011 08:31PM

strobe wrote: »

...and here we are.

I prefer your summaries at 4am

sponsoredwalk · 13-07-2011 09:21PM

So are we still allowed to look at the opposite sex or what?

liamw · 13-07-2011 09:37PM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So are we still allowed to look at the opposite sex or what?

Of course you are, as long as you can check them out without being caught. Otherwise, they might feel uncomfortable and blog about being sexualized.

robindch · 13-07-2011 10:09PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow - I would imagine the instances of axe-wielding, child-molesting cannibalism are much less than the instances of rape and yet I wouldn't consider that an unreasonable statement.

I'm not sure if you're kidding at this point, but assuming you're not, would you feel trusted and welcomed by somebody who introduced themselves to you with the line "Hi there, Ickle, even though you're a women, you're probably not a rapist!"?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Perhaps I'm on my own here but I don't leave the keys in my car or my front door unlocked, either - would you?

As a matter of fact I do both, especially when I'm down the country. I find that if one extends trust, it's almost always returned. And if -- like Watson -- you extend distrust, well, that's returned too.

As I said somewhere up above, at this point, Watson appears to be playing the issue for politics; she's claiming there's a widespread problem (sexism within skepticism/atheism) which she does not back up with evidence; she's saying things about us guys which conflict directly with my experience of both; of the little quoted evidence she's produced, I believe portions of it may be fabricated; and she's using some fairly disjunctive, frankly ropey, rhetorical tricks to drive home her point.

Some facts would help here, so it's then possible to discuss the interpretation of the facts. At the moment, Watson has not produced the former, so assertion of the latter is quite premature.

Fremen · 14-07-2011 12:26AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow - I would imagine the instances of axe-wielding, child-molesting cannibalism are much less than the instances of rape and yet I wouldn't consider that an unreasonable statement.

A better analogy might have been if someone said "the vast majority of arabs aren't terrorists". If used in the right manner, this phrase can be used to highlight the fact that there's a small, possibly significant group that are terrorists.

In the present context, the issue of rape is a political hot button. Unless a speaker is trying to be inflamatory, the wise move would be to avoid mentioning it.

Ickle Magoo · 14-07-2011 12:39AM

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're kidding at this point, but assuming you're not, would you feel trusted and welcomed by somebody who introduced themselves to you with the line "Hi there, Ickle, even though you're a women, you're probably not a rapist!"?

Are you joking now? Introduction?

You suggested Watson would get upset if somebody were to claim that "The vast majority of skepchicks aren't axe-wielding, child-molesting cannibals" My point is if the majority of persons charged, prosecuted and found guilty of axe-wielding, child-molestation and cannibalisation came from the skepchick camp yet still made up a small percentage of the over-all blogger-ship then she could have few complaints at the truism "The vast majority of skepchicks aren't axe-wielding, child-molesting cannibals" - much as I wouldn't be wailing and gnashing my teeth with cries of "But I'm no murderer" if somebody points out that the vast majority of women don't kill their families.

robindch wrote: »

As a matter of fact I do both, especially when I'm down the country. I find that if one extends trust, it's almost always returned. And if -- like Watson -- you extend distrust, well, that's returned too.

But if you are being honest, you are wary under certain circumstances where you perceive a greater risk....and perhaps if you'd had your car stolen or been burgled a couple of times you'd be that much more wary?

I've been attacked, several times. I am very aware that the sentiments of "trust everyone and you'll be safe" although lovely, is just a nonsense; perhaps that's the privilege RW was referring to?

robindch wrote: »

As I said somewhere up above, at this point, Watson appears to be playing the issue for politics; she's claiming there's a widespread problem (sexism within skepticism/atheism) which she does not back up with evidence; she's saying things about us guys which conflict directly with my experience of both; of the little quoted evidence she's produced, I believe portions of it may be fabricated; and she's using some fairly disjunctive, frankly ropey, rhetorical tricks to drive home her point.

She may be doing all those things but it's obvious she's in fairly good company - which is why some of her claims are not being dismissed out of hand...and why this rumbles on. Some of the comments and attitudes shown by those who clearly read and follow atheist/skeptic bloggers - some of which have been echoed on this thread - really don't do much to persuade those of us who aren't an avid member to get involved. It's been a real eye-opener for many...and not in a good way.

robindch wrote: »

Some facts would help here, so it's then possible to discuss the interpretation of the facts. At the moment, Watson has not produced the former, so assertion of the latter is quite premature.

There is enough evidence of some fairly ropey excuses for rationalism coming from both sides. The blinkered defence of RD Vs the blinkered defence of RW - neither justified nor rational.

Fremen wrote:

In the present context, the issue of rape is a political hot button. Unless a speaker is trying to be inflamatory, the wise move would be to avoid mentioning it.

I agree and perhaps someone ought to have pointed that out to RD?

virmilitaris · 14-07-2011 01:35AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

She may well be - but that statement on it's own wouldn't qualify as proof.

So you would be fine with these statements? And you wouldn't consider them to be misogynist ?

All women are not sluts. Most women aren't even.
All women are not stupid. Most women aren't even.

Because I wouldn't be fine with them and I would consider them misogynist. In fact they'd make me pretty angry.

Ickle Magoo · 14-07-2011 01:37AM

They'd be petty and pretty bad english...certainly worthy of one of these -> :rolleyes:

But no, I wouldn't be horribly offended and I wouldn't consider them representative of a person who hates all women. I hear far worse on a daily basis, tbh.

virmilitaris · 14-07-2011 01:51AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

They'd be petty and pretty bad english...certainly worthy of one of these -> :rolleyes:

But no, I wouldn't be horribly offended and I wouldn't consider them representative of a person who hates all women. I hear far worse on a daily basis, tbh.

Come on ickle now you are been ridiculous. You know perfectly well that the phrasing of those sentences are designed to be taken badly. As was Watsons.

Ickle Magoo · 14-07-2011 01:54AM

How do I know what motivation of the design of the sentences were? If I don't know the motives of Grassy Noel, I certainly don't know what went through somebody else's mind as they typed something. Just as it's been argued that poor old grassy was just innocently making a move that came out all wrong, perhaps RW just did the same?

I have worse in my inbox most mornings, geez, what a storm in a tea-cup.

virmilitaris · 14-07-2011 02:00AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I've been attacked, several times. I am very aware that the sentiments of "trust everyone and you'll be safe" although lovely, is just a nonsense; perhaps that's the privilege RW was referring to?

I'm very sorry to hear that but have you considered that your experiences have clouded your judgement here ?

I don't think Robin is suggesting we trust everyone, I think he's saying that we should assume they are are a decent person until shown otherwise.

Here's an example. I live near a large US military base and there's been a lot of trouble with the soldiers including rape, mugging and just generally beating the crap out of randomers for no reason. (the last one is pretty common)

But when I go out and meet soldiers I don't assume anything. When walking home alone past a group of them I'm not thinking that they are going to jump on me either. I've never actually had any issues at all with any of them.

But maybe if I had had an issue before I would be more distrustful.

I agree and perhaps someone ought to have pointed that out to RD?

Eh, what ?

Ickle Magoo · 14-07-2011 02:14AM

virmilitaris wrote: »

I'm very sorry to hear that but have you considered that your experiences have clouded your judgement here ?

No, I think lack of experience is clouding other peoples.

virmilitaris wrote: »

I don't think Robin is suggesting we trust everyone, I think he's saying that we should assume they are are a decent person until shown otherwise.

Here's an example. I live near a large US military base and there's always a lot of trouble with the soldiers including rape, mugging and just generally beating the crap out of randomers for no reason.

But when I go out and meet soldiers I don't assume anything. When walking home alone past a group of them I'm not thinking that they are going to jump on me either. I've never actually had any issues at all with any of them.

But maybe if I had had an issue before I would be more distrustful.

Bingo...

virmilitaris wrote: »

Eh, what ?

Rape/women's personal safety/domestic violence/etc, etc hasn't just magically become a hot potato because of this one incident - it's ALWAYS been an emotive topic.

virmilitaris · 14-07-2011 02:49AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, I think lack of experience is clouding other peoples.

You have that backwards. How many men have you met that attacked you compared to the number of men you have met that didn't attack you ?

I've been beaten up before, not by American soldiers, and yet I still don't automatically get worried when I met people alone on the street. Why ? Because the number of times I've been attacked while walking alone is almost negligible compared to the times I haven't.

Anything and everything is possible. A few months ago where I live a woman stabbed her husband to death in her sleep because she found out he was planning to divorce her.

Does that mean I should sleep with one eye open if I ever plan to get divorced ? Of course not.

Bingo...

Why bingo ? I said maybe I'd be more distrustful if I had had an issue. I wouldn't want to meet anyone I had an issue with again especially if that issue was violent so naturally if I had had an issue and was walking alone and seen a group of soldiers I'd automatically wonder if it was the same guys. There aren't too many non-asians round my place who aren't military.

Rape/women's personal safety/domestic violence/etc, etc hasn't just magically become a hot potato because of this one incident - it's ALWAYS been an emotive topic.

Congratulations, I think you're getting it.

What happened to RW was nothing. Nada. Not worthy of discussion. It had nothing to do with Rape/women's personal safety/domestic violence/etc

Dawkins' reply was ill-mannered which provoked an emotive response which magically turned Rebecca Watsons 'discomfort' at been chatted up into a Rape/women's personal safety/domestic violence/etc issue.

Most women aren't controlled by their emotions.

sponsoredwalk · 14-07-2011 03:08AM

liamw wrote: »

Of course you are, as long as you can check them out without being caught. Otherwise, they might feel uncomfortable and blog about being sexualized.

Don't worry brother, one of our leaders has offered us an olive branch,
we might yet shake off the shameful baggage of sexualizing (pbui) others
if we adopt this strict code of etiquette :cool:

Dave! · 14-07-2011 08:10AM

This really is getting quite ridiculous now...

Rev Hellfire · 14-07-2011 08:29AM

Dave! wrote: »

This really is getting quite ridiculous now...

Its only getting ridiculous now? Its been ridiculous from the first ridiculous post by RW.

mewso · 14-07-2011 08:30AM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Don't worry brother, one of our leaders has offered us an olive branch,
we might yet shake off the shameful baggage of sexualizing (pbui) others
if we adopt this strict code of etiquette :cool:

That is quite simply pathetic from PZ Meyers.

Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Comments