Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

robindch wrote: »

It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that there are more than one set of facts which fit an account of event, particularly when the most voluble player in all of this seems to have developed a subsequent personal interest in one specific interpretation of her earlier much more relaxed account.

When the fact that you are positing is that no other facts about the matter exist, at all, then no, it isn't reasonable to attempt to use that as a point of discussion.

It would be reasonable to state that that was your opinion and leave it there, sure. But to keep saying "well maybe she made it all up!" as if it's some kind of argument in a debate is just ludicrous. It really is.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

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.

There is not a doubt in my mind that it happens all the time. Nor do I doubt that it often works. Not all situations are equal. At a sci-fi convention where people are dressed in revealing clothes and eyeing each other up all day, it would be far less inconceivable that it would be tried and even successful. But like I said, not all situations are equal. This is a convention of atheists (critical thinkers) and they (at least the women) do expect much more than random come ons from strangers at 4am in an enclosed space while you're alone with said stranger.

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

I'll keep that in mind.

virmilitaris wrote: »

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.

No, I'm not. There is no 'over the other' involved whatsoever. Both require consideration of thoughts and feelings, if one desires not to act in a sexist or rude manner.

A woman alone at night needs no extra consideration. Just consideration, full stop. And it isn't limited to elevators. Nor to interactions between men and women.

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.

Exactly. Because you're not sexually attracted to a man, you'd never think of hitting on one in an inappropriate or rude manner. You could be rude to a man, sure, and you might do it in a way that shows that you haven't considered his thoughts and feelings as a man, which would be sexist. Women and men treat each other in sexist ways all the time. It's nearly unavoidable due to the fact that all over the world, sexism is still all around us. Ralph Linton put it very well - "The last thing a fish would ever notice would be water." It's encouraging that most people at least in the atheist community are noticing it, thanks in part to this one incident. As for society at large, just as most don't realize the problems that religion creates, most don't have a clue as to the problems that sexism creates.

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.

Highlighting gender issues is not creating the problem, it's observing the problem. You have it backwards.

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.

Nodin wrote: »

Actually, thats just the reason it should be pointed out.

It has been pointed out. Ad nauseam. Does pointing it out over and over and over and over again accomplish anything, do you think? If so, please let me know, because I'm at a loss here.

I find your characterisation of the invite itself to be somewhat hysterical, I might add.

Ok.

O I'd say they're more likely to be noticing the presence of the attention hungry, rather than anything else.

If you take a look around the internet, at the various atheist sites on which people are discussing the issue, you might notice that the majority of men and the vast majority of women seem to have come away with a different impression of the event. Most seem to have acknowledged the inherent sexism demonstrated in the interatcion.

This statement:

Nodin wrote: »

...actually, it hasn't.

Demonstrates that you haven't bothered to read much at all about this incident, because that allegation has been made in every single online discussion I've read about it. More than once in each discussion, usually.

"various atheist sites" located "around the internet". Why thats as quantifiable and measurable as counting the fingers on ones own hand.

What's the point of quanitfying it? There are so many sites you could check out. Should I give you a list? I could do that easily, a list of discussions that started after bloggers made both pro- and con- posts about the alleged incident.

gargleblaster wrote: »

Thanks, I appreciate that.

No prob.

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'm not sure I follow you here but I think you were agreeing with the point I was trying to make. So we agree here then.

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 think we agree here too. (This is going uncharacteristically smoothly)

Whoa whoa whoa, I did not say that any woman who appreciated such treatment was a desperate loser.

Apparently you type faster than I edit. Swapped 'losers' for 'attention seekers'. (and cleared up some grammatical errors for good measure).

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.

Ahh, not so smoothly. Could I just point out another possible reason apart from her not seeing that it is disrespectful. That it may in fact not be disrespectful maybe? As you put it yourself above "not all notice that it might be disrespectful - and in not all instances is it disrespectful." (emphasis mine).

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.

Fair enough, I may have taken you up wrong on that point. You can appreciate how what you said could be taken that way though? How having "Look at her over there desperate for attention." said behind some peoples back would be almost as insulting as "Look at that slut" to them?

liamw wrote: »

You're so close to the core issue with RW's statement. You can't generalize like this - you can't say 'men this' and 'women that'. Every person is an individual, and that's what sexual equality should be about; treat everyone equally regardless of their sex.

We have to make generalities when discussing societal issues. Just as we make generalities when discussing differing religions, or groups of religious sects within a religion, etc. In order to have any meaninglul discussion of the social interactions of these groups on a macro level, you have to. It is of course always a given that there are exceptions.

There is a very specific interaction that set off this ****storm, which involves the debate over whether it was in any way rude or dismissive of RW's concerns as a woman for a stranger to hit on her at 4 am, alone in an elevator. I'm leaving out the other context at this point (i.e. the subject of her talk and her statement about being tired and wanting to go to bed) as it seems too irresistible of a target for derailment.

Again, I'm not saying anyone deserves special treatment, just that if you wish to come on to someone, taking their possible or even likely feelings and concerns into consideration beforehand is the decent thing to do if you wish to convey the idea that you think of them as a person deserving of such consideration.

gargleblaster wrote: »

Again, I'm not saying anyone deserves special treatment, just that if you wish to come on to someone, taking their possible or even likely feelings and concerns into consideration beforehand is the decent thing to do if you wish to convey the idea that you think of them as a person deserving of such consideration.

It's possible you haven't read the entire thread, but I agree with this. I also pointed out that this applies to every situation - being considerate - nothing to do with sexism.

I have no issue with RW stating how she felt in her own personal blog. The manner in which she said it though implied that she was speaking on behalf of 50% of the human race, which is stupid.

liamw wrote: »

It's possible you haven't read the entire thread, but I agree with this. I also pointed out that this applies to every situation - being considerate - nothing to do with sexism.

Well we disagree here, because it seems to me that if an individual is disrespected in a manner that indicates the treatment is dependent on an assumption made based on, or inconsiderate treatment based on (as in this case) their gender, that it is indeed sexism.

I have no issue with RW stating how she felt in her own personal blog. The manner in which she said it though implied that she was speaking on behalf of 50% of the human race, which is stupid.

I disagree that it's stupid. Despite the fact that not all women recognize why the way he approached her was inconsiderate/rude/threatening - the majority of women seem to agree that it was. She could have pointed out that not all women agree, but the fact is, most do. And logically speaking, it really does seem fairly patently obvious - as the farting in an elevator or making armpit farts in church analogies would seem to demonstrate quite clearly.

gargleblaster wrote:

I disagree that it's stupid. Despite the fact that not all women recognize why the way he approached her was inconsiderate/rude/threatening - the majority of women seem to agree that it was.…

The majority can think what they like. It doesn't make it correct.

You are right about one thing though, this is an age and a culture difference issue.

What you and RW supporters are advocating is the old fashioned 'women are delicate' bull excrement that so many older people agree with. Men can go rpund having sex with whomever they like but a woman should be more pure because to do otherwise somehow makes her unclean. Utter nonsense.

Every generation this kind of old fashioned nonsense is dying and young people see the two genders as more equal all the time. Its completely common these days to see groups of friends consisting of both sexes whereas before it would be very rare.

When I explained this situation to my wife she thought RW was offended because she was conservative. Which um beginning to think is a good point in itself.

RW and the other so called feminists are pepetuating the image of the old fashioned woman who gets offended at the thought of sex without been treated like a little princess for weeks before hand. The old fashioned nonsense that women are doing men a favour by having sex, 'spread the legs and think of England' to coin a phrase.

Well f@#$ that. I believe that women are our equals and should be treated as such. Not as some kind of delicate flower that bruises if we handle it too roughly.

Women and men are human beings and we should treat eachother as good as we ourselves want to be treated. I refuse to succumb to this nonsensical idea that one half of the human race needs to be treated differently.

If it was sexist and rude for elevator guy to come onto RW, then what if a gay guy approached another gay guy in the same situation? Not sexist presumably -- merely rude?

Is it just automatically sexist if a dude does it to a woman?

gargleblaster wrote: »

......................



Ahem. You do realize that when discussing matters such as this, where the issue is whether or not something is socially acceptable, that argumentum ad populum is not fallacious? Apparently not. Well, it isn't.

Now you can challenge whether or not my perception of the majority opinion is correct or not - and if we're discussing society at large I would guess that you are correct - most do not see this as sexist or rude.

However I was referring to the atheist community - and based on what I've read and heard so far, it does seem to me that while there is not a complete agreement, there does appear to be close enough to a consensus to warrant my making the claims I did.

What did I say? Why I said an attempt at an " unverifiable Argumentum Ad Populum".

virmilitaris wrote: »

The majority can think what they like. It doesn't make it correct.

Actually, when it comes to social norms, it kinda does.

It used to be a social norm for minorites, women and adherents to various religions to be the subject of rampant discrimination. Most of that has fallen by the wayside, at least in western societies. Neither sexism nor racism has disappeared completely.

You are right about one thing though, this is an age and a culture difference issue.

What you and RW supporters are advocating is the old fashioned 'women are delicate' bull excrement that so many older people agree with. Men can go rpund having sex with whomever they like but a woman should be more pure because to do otherwise somehow makes her unclean. Utter nonsense.

Pardon me? No, you have it completely wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with prudishness or limiting women's sexuality.



As for the unverifiability of my claims that most of the atheist community 'gets it', we only have empirical evidence to go on. Lacking surveys doesn't mean we can't hypothesize about how many people agree that it was a gesture born out of male privilege.

If you don't wish to attempt to show how I've got it wrong regarding the opinion of the atheist community in general, that's fine. However I'd like to point out that this discussion seems to me to be an exception to the other discussions I've seen. Every other one was dominated by those who claimed to 'get it' - and those who claimed that the rest were being hysterical, prude, or whatever other completely illogical and frankly laughably ridiculous claims (forcing women to wear burqas, wanting to stop men from having sex, etc.) were in the distinct minority.


Obviously most of the atheists on this forum disagree that it was sexist. It's been enjoyable discussing the issue here for a bit, thanks for the conversation.

robindch wrote: »

To wit:



Hamlet, Act 3, Scene II

/thread

Oh but of course: that she posed for something she was happy to do, NATURALLY, means she cannot be against something she did not agree. After all, being compliant once means being compliant at all times.