Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

axer wrote: »

Critical and skeptical. I am very skeptical of the insinuations that this guy was a danger to RW.

As robindch alludes to it is a bit ironic that RW calls herself a feminist and skepchick.

In all probability he was not a danger at all. That is not the point.

Can we seriously still be debating these very basic things? It just boggles the mind, really.

The issue isn't whether he was or was not a danger. The issue is that for a woman to be propositioned in such a context by a stranger is problematic to say the very least. The fact that he didn't realize this doesn't make him the atheist version of Satan incarnate. It is simply privileged, rude behavior. Why is that so very hard to recognize and acknowledge?

axer wrote: »

Believe it or not each human grows up with a different set of experiences no matter regardless of their gender. There are some women who like getting hit on, there are women that dont, there are men that like getting hit on, there are those that don't. And then there are all those in between. What was your point again? Is it that men should be prejudical against women because of their gender? i.e. she is a woman thus she does not like getting hit on. Sounds somewhat sexist to me.

Wow, another strawman. How shocking.

Yes, obviously, individuals have vastly differing experiences and tastes.

However, we are talking about one isolated incident, in which a man hit on a complete stranger in an elevator. At 4 am. When he was alone in this place with her.

Yes, some people might not find it rude to be propositioned by strangers in such a context. Do you think that most people would find it a-ok? Do you think that the majority of women would find it non-threatening, and would not be offended that rather than take her feelings into consideration, he'd just go on and ask for something he wanted?

Here's a clue - take a look at the responses to the situation. There are very few women defending this as being an example of acceptable behavior in a general sense. There aren't even that many men in the atheist blogosphere still defending it.

Kila wrote: »

Actually...

As per a link in my blog, and as a result of all this mess, PZ Myers put together a post doing just that, entitled the Decent Human Beings' Guide to Getting Laid at Atheist Conferences, talking about how and when a "decent" human being should proposition a women. Of course, the implication there is that anyone not adhering to this (or, bluntly, the bloke that RW talked about) is not a decent human being. A bit of a broad brush stroke to make, based on one single encounter, don't you think?

PZ Myers is using humor and offering a list of suggestions. Hence he used the word "guide" and not words like "laws" or "rules".

I don't agree that his behaviour was ill-mannered. He approached her when she was alone, probably because he was concerned about being shot down publicly (which is a valid concern). When she said no, he didn't pressure her or beat her or anything of the sort, he just left it.

So now you're a mind-reader, and you know why he waited till they were alone to proposition her? Amazing!

Whatever his reasons for making this faux pas, they change nothing.

robindch wrote: »

Logic fail.

Everyone is free to be as rude and sexist as they like.

It does not mean they have the right not to be called on it.

Clearer?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Presumably you expect people to hit on others at - say - 4 in the afternoon, in front of a large audience? Can you see any problems with that?

Oh. My. FSM.


I just really am nearly beyond bothering at this point.


I really did expect so much better.

Kila wrote: »

I'm aware he's using humour, but the humour doesn't detract from the point he's making, and my own subsequent point - the overall implication that this bloke and any like him are not "decent".

I wasn't aware this thread was intended for the purposes of debating PZ Myers' word choices. :rolleyes:

I agree with you that the implication that men who do rude things can't be overall decent people who are just utterly clueless as to how to treat other human beings as equals and in a respectful manner.

However, this does not mean that I disagree with Myers' overall point (some might refer his overall point as "the forest" and his word choice as "the trees").

Nope, I used the word probably, to indicate that I was making an assumption that may or may not be true. I've made this assumption based on talking to people about the issue, and have proposed it as an alternative theory to the "he's a mad creepy rapist" side of things, which equally, has no more evidence than something said by RW, since we're getting down to this level.

Who said he was a mad creepy racist? Here again, the ever-popular strawman. Oh shock, oh horror. My surprise knows no bounds, really.

Why are you even attempting to read his mind, may I ask? Why are you bending over backwards to find rationalizations for rude behavior?

We all understand that there may be many reasons for his being rude. It may be that he simply didn't hear her say she was going to bed, and he thought she was giving him the eye. It may be that he missed the talk of this woman who he supposedly thought so much of. It may be that he (like the vast majority of people who still don't get it), being raised in this culture of nearly everpresent sexism, simply did not see how what he was doing was rude.

None of that changes the fact that it was rude and inconsiderate.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So you why did he ask her at all? And why did he then respect her answer?

Because if he didn't ask then he'd have no chance of having "coffee" with this woman he found so interesting, obviously.

He respected her answer because he's not a complete jerkwad, I'd assume.

We're into the realm of speculation here. But, as others have observed, if the guy even heard her say this stuff, there's no particular reason that he should have believed this precluded an approach. I've often heard women (and guys) say this as an excuse to leave a group.

Here again, we are making up reasons to excuse rude behavior. Why?

So many people are trying so hard to come up with any justification at all that will make what he did seem ok.

Why?

The fact is, it was inconsiderate. If he really heard her say she was tired and wanted to go to bed, and thought to himself, "I bet she just wants to get away from them and be alone with me," then that's just another way that people can get themselves into trouble - by convincing themselves that what people say isn't what they mean. If she had been sending him any signals at all that it was an excuse, then that is indeed on her.

Maybe he thought she was an open-minded, liberated woman who would be interested in some fun (or a chat)? Women don't have to be drunk to want sex, do they?

No, but most women don't find going to strangers' hotel rooms at 4 am a fun, open-minded, or liberated thing to do. Most women would find that extremely risky behavior, and would find the invitation rude at least, threatening at worst.

You are begging the question: you assume that he knew her thoughts and opinions before he approached her. We don't know this to be the case.

When we interact in public, we often have to rely on a set of assumptions about others' thoughts and feelings.

For example, if I were in an elevator, I would not fart loudly and expect the person next to me to find it amusing. This is based on the understanding that foul smells in elevators are unwelcome, despite the fact that a small portion of the population might actually find it amusing despite the offensive odor.

In this same vein, I would expect men to understand that propositioning complete strangers at 4 am, alone in an elevator, might be construed as rude if not outright threatening behavior.

Given that roughly (wild guess) 80% of the blogosphere seems to get this, I don't think I'm way off base in saying that the vast majority of women do not welcome advances by strangers in elevators at 4am.

Bearing that in mind, it's ironic that you write this:

...having made up some key details of the scenario, such as the certainty that he knew she would not be interested before he asked.

(as I've said earlier in the thread, if he knew she wasn't interested, that puts a different complexion on things - but then, why would he have asked at all?)

She didn't know him from Adam. The very idea that she was interested in having random sex with a stranger that she met that day is just - I don't even know why you're going there. It's so outside the realm of possibility (as would be me expecting a stranger in an elevator to find my farting in said elevator amusing as opposed to offensive) that it beggars belief. As with finding farts funny - yes, there is a possibility. Is it an excuse for engaging in rude behavior, because 'well hey, I don't know that they won't find it amusing'? No, it isn't.

And once again, I'm not making up rules that say nobody can ever fart except where I say it's ok to fart. I'm not saying that we have to ask permission to fart.

I'm saying use a bit of common flipping sense. That's it.

gargleblaster wrote: »

She didn't know him from Adam. The very idea that she was interested in having random sex with a stranger that she met that day is just - I don't even know why you're going there. It's so outside the realm of possibility (as would be me expecting a stranger in an elevator to find my farting in said elevator amusing as opposed to offensive) that it beggars belief.

I think that we must have very different life experiences, but I know from personal experience (through friends and acquaintances, male and female) that this type of thing happens all the time. It's possible that one of us (probably me) is moving in the wrong circles.

gargleblaster wrote: »

As with finding farts funny - yes, there is a possibility.

I don't think it would be harming your argument if I said that I personally would find it hilariously inappropriate.

gargleblaster wrote:

Everyone is free to be as rude and sexist as they like.

It does not mean they have the right not to be called on it.

You're saying that men and women are so different that one needs special consideration over the other. That a woman in an elevator alone at night is vunerable and needs extra consideration over a man.

I don't accept this because it is the foundation of sexism. I treat women and men with equal respect and consideration. I will not treat one of my fellow brothers or sisters differently because of biology or society except in the way that I amnt sexually attracted to men.

I don't see my friends as female and male. I see my friends as my friends, as people.

You are talking about a type of feminism that highlights gender issues, that forces a wedge between the genders. I don't want to be any more or any less considerate to a woman than I am to a man because their sex makes no difference to me except I am.attracted to some women.

Your position is the sexist one.

robindch wrote: »

Not in the specific context where you implied that anybody who didn't support your POV was being quite daft.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said I expected more from critical thinkers, not that anyone was daft. And I still do. All these lame strawmen, all these ways to avoid the actual topic, and divert the discussion to things that haven't even been proposed (rules about when to proposition women, wearing burqas, etc.) It really is disappointing to see such massive logic fails repeated again and again and again.

As for my being shocked at the lack of logical discussion about the topic, what has that got to do with the assertion that she is just making it all up? I still maintain that if one does believe that it's made up, that's all well and good. There seems to me to be no reason to continue to discuss it, if that's the conclusion one has come to, that's all. The possibility is there, it has been acknolwedged. Is it meaningful? Not really. If it is made up, it is quite obviously an interesting hypothetical scenario for a discussion, or it wouldn't have created such a fracas and people wouldn't be discussing it. So, moving on.

All we're doing is pointing out that there are other straightforward explanations which fit the facts easily and simply. No need for anyone to tie themselves in "convoluted knots of pretzel logic".I have claimed nowhere that she has "made it all up". Incidentally, it's considered off-limits in A+A to put something in quotation marks unless they actually said it.

On the contrary, I have suggested that it's a possibility (which it is, however unlikely that may be).

What's the point of coming up with excuses for rude behavior? It really comes down to what one wishes to discuss. I wish to discuss the issue of whether or not the alleged come on was rude and/or sexist. I obviously think it was both. Others disagree.

Coming up with myriad rationalizations to excuse or justify the behavior that was alleged to have happened, to my mind, do not make the behavior any less rude or sexist. So I don't see the point. No matter what excuses can be thought up, the behavior is what it is.

As for the quotation marks, mea culpa. I assumed that in a forum where calling women bitches was all well and good, that cautious use of punctuation marks to avoid the appearance of misquoting rather than obvious paraphrasing wouldn't be an issue. My mistake.

gargleblaster wrote: »

Why? Because I can't see any other reason that a woman would appreciate being treated so disrespectfully?

Apologies for the bitch remark. Was childish of me.

You consider it so "creepy, impersonal, inconsiderate (and) disrespectful", not all women would. Maybe it's an age/generational thing. I have on occasion in the past subtly 'propositioned' girls during our first meeting. Sometimes in a way not a million miles away from what elevator guy did (not asking if they want to have coffee obviously - I'm not that cliched or American ). If they all found it so horribly despicable some of them had a very strange way of showing it. (Hmm, in the spirit of full disclosure and to give proper context to that last sentence I should probably mention at this point that I am so handsome it is positively embarrassing :pac:).

I wouldn't have said they were all desperate attention seekers. I think it is quite an insulting insinuation to make (only half a step above things like claiming just because a girl is sexually liberal that she is a slut). It's all very Mary Whitehouse and is reminiscent of the kind of attitude feminists often can't wait to chastise men for expressing. Considering I count several lifelong friends and at least one former girlfriend, all of whom I respect and hold in high regard, amongst the people you are talking about, yes I take offense to the remark and found it quite 'bitchy'. Particularly because I often see them having to put up with snide comments made along the same lines by other women. It's not very nice. In fact, and I'm sure you will appreciate this point going by many of your posts in the thread, I would call it downright rude and sexist. While you are free to be those things of course, that doesn't mean you have the right not to be called on it.

strobe wrote: »

Apologies for the bitch remark. Was childish of me.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

You consider it so "creepy, impersonal, inconsiderate (and) disrespectful", not all women would. Maybe it's an age/generational thing.

I think you're right. At this point in time, many older people are still racist as hell, but they just don't realize it, it's just the way they grew up. Similarly, I think that in the future (hopefully sooner rather than later, but we'll see), the sexist interactions that so many of us face will become more noticeable as future generations are raised without the blinders to it that most people still have.

I have on occasion in the past subtly 'propositioned' girls during our first meeting. Sometimes in a way not a million miles away from what elevator guy did (not asking if they want to have coffee obviously - I'm not that cliched or American ). If they all found it so horribly despicable some of them had a very strange way of showing it. (Hmm, in the spirit of full disclosure and to give proper context to that last sentence I should probably mention at this point that I am so handsome it is positively embarrassing :pac:).

Really trying hard to avoid using a particular oft-repeated catchphrase regarding the choice between offering photographic evidence or leaving the vicinity right now.

All joking aside though, I'm sure you have. And I'm sure it works. Not all women find it offensive, not all notice that it might be disrespectful - and in not all instances is it disrespectful. If a woman is sending out signals that she is interested, then it certainly isn't. Sexual interaction is so complex that it really can't be subjected to a set of hard and fast rules. The best one is like someone already said - just don't be a dick (or ****).

The main issue here, I think, is the timing and the situation. And even in that situation there are probably many women who would respond favorably, especially if you are, as you put it, so handsome that it's positively embarrassing. *bites tongue (or, the keyboard equivalent)*

I wouldn't have said they were all desperate losers. I think it is quite an insulting insinuation to make (only half a step above things like claiming just because a girl is sexually liberal that she is a slut).

Whoa whoa whoa, I did not say that any woman who appreciated such treatment was a desperate loser. I said that a possible reason they might not see it as disrespectful was if they were desperate for attention, as that was at the time the only reason I could think of which would enable the disrespectful treatment to be tolerable. Now that I've thought about it there is another reason, and that is that she simply doesn't see that it is disrespectful. Many Disney cartoons and romantic movies portray disrespectful treatment as being outright romantic, so that really should have been my first guess. Again, mea culpa.

It's all very Mary Whitehouse and is reminiscent of the kind of attitude feminists often can't wait to chastise men for expressing. Considering I count several lifelong friends and at least one former girlfriend all of whom I respect and hold in regard, yes I take offense to the remark and found it quite 'bitchy', particularly because I often see them having to put up with snide comments made along the same lines by other women. It's not very nice. In fact, and I'm sure you will appreciate this point going by many of your posts in the thread, I would call it downright rude and sexist. While you are free to be those things that of course, that doesn't mean you have the right not to be called on it.

Very fair point. I apologize for having given you that impression, because that's certainly not what I meant.

I also don't think calling certain behaviors demonstrated by women a possible sign of being desperate for men's approval is anywhere near as bad as calling a sexually promiscuous woman a slut. Just MHO.