Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Mickeroo · 19-07-2011 11:28pm

fatmammycat wrote: »

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.

Is that not what being a hypocrite means?

pH · 19-07-2011 11:30pm

fatmammycat wrote: »

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.

As far as I know, no one attempted to remove her clothes and take a picture of her naked in a lift. Do you know different?

liamw · 19-07-2011 11:42pm

She hates being sexualized but posts this stuff on Flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/skepchick/3679877386/

strobe · 19-07-2011 11:46pm

axer wrote: »

and she is also in a skepchick pin-up calendar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bc7uRF_JZI
Its just such a ridiculus argument coming from her that she doesn't like being sexualised.

robindch wrote: »

To wit:

Hamlet, Act 3, Scene II

/thread

liamw wrote: »

She hates being sexualized but posts this stuff on Flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/skepchick/3679877386/

So she poses in a few sexualised photos and that means it's ok to repeatedly rape her in an elevator!?!

You people sicken me. :mad:

liamw · 19-07-2011 11:54pm

axer wrote: »

and she is also in a skepchick pin-up calendar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bc7uRF_JZI
Its just such a ridiculus argument coming from her that she doesn't like being sexualised.

Top Comments

"Stop sexually objectifying women! Now buy my pin up calendar!" - Rebecca Watson
aoakampfer 1 week ago 74

Galvasean · 20-07-2011 12:03am

Yeah, but those photos are in black and white, therefore it's 'art'

Galvasean · 20-07-2011 12:08am

strobe wrote: »

So she poses in a few sexualised photos and that means it's ok to repeatedly rape her in an elevator!?!

You people sicken me. :mad:

She had it cuming to her.

robindch · 20-07-2011 12:09am

axer wrote: »

and she is also in a skepchick pin-up calendar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bc7uRF_JZI

the backing music is by George Hrab (visited Dublin recently!) and here's an excerpt from the lyrics:

George Hrab wrote:

what I need is a two-sided coin
she better satisfy my brain as well as my loins
she better wear a tight dress and have a mind that’s strong
I want brains and a body is that so wrong?
when she shows me her brain cells
then my pride suddenly swells
like a Botticelli chick she’s on the half shell
but she likes gettin’ nasty like Tori Welles

brainsbodyboth… I wanna eat my cake and have it too

Indeed.

Meanwhile, while I'm not an expert on Watson's back, but I think the last girl in that video is Watson herself (seems to be her hair, please correct if wrong). And here's how that model posed:

liamw wrote: »

She hates being sexualized but posts this stuff on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/skepchick/3679877386/

And this photo's marked as one of her favourites:

She complains about being sexually objectified while seemingly posing naked on a video and also apparently selling and signing her own line of skeptical knickers for men?

Words fail me. They really do.

Overature · 20-07-2011 12:10am

what happened? you say, why the situation elevated

Galvasean · 20-07-2011 12:14am

Wow, I wish we hadn't gone through dozens of pages of rigorous debate before finding out about all the saucy hypocrisy. Turns out, pointing and laughing was the correct thing to do.

robindch · 20-07-2011 12:17am

Galvasean wrote: »

Wow, I wish we hadn't gone through dozens of pages of rigorous debate before finding out about all the saucy hypocrisy.

Kudos to Einhard, axer and liamw for finding that stuff.

Galvasean wrote: »

Turns out, pointing and laughing was the correct thing to do.

It certainly is now

sponsoredwalk · 20-07-2011 12:41am

I'd just like to point out there are now 98 posts in this thread mentioning
rape when the conversation is about a guy telling a girl that he found her
interesting in the elevator of a 4 star hotel after a party.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBe0p13cPxk

Ickle Magoo · 20-07-2011 10:05am

How depressing that this has to be one of the few forums that turns into something more resembling a Bevis and Butt-head episode than a group of adult skeptics accepting that a number or women are trying to explain why there is a distinct lack of women in their movement, if not their forum.

virmilitaris · 20-07-2011 10:51am

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

How depressing that this has to be one of the few forums that turns into something more resembling a Bevis and Butt-head episode than a group of adult skeptics accepting that a number or women are trying to explain why there is a distinct lack of women in their movement, if not their forum.

Is it as depressing as discovering that one of us refuses to see they might be wrong ? You haven't responded to several points made and you also don't seem to have listened to what we are saying about the incident.

In short form.

I agree that the guy in the elevator made a mistake. It's not right to simply ask for sex like that straight away in those circumstances.

I agree Dawkins' reply was overly dismissive and rude regardless of whether or not he was right.

I agree that there is an issue in bringing women (and minorities) to and keeping them in our community.

Have we got that much straight ?

I don't agree that the guy in the elevator was misogynist, or a threat to her. He made a bad pass at her. End of.

I don't agree that men (or women) should not make passes at the opposite sex at these meetings. Even in an elevator at 4am if that matters.

Ok ?

There are more men who attend these conferences than women. This is a simple fact. In environments where there are more men than women or more women than men then the minority will always get more attention from the majority. It's simply a numbers game and it's part of being alive. If I was a man/woman and I was surrounded by men/women and not getting hit on then I would be worried.

How many men to women ratio were at the conference ? How many men hit on her ?

Take a man and stick him in a all-female office and see how many times he gets hit on. I'd bet the numbers wouldn't be that dissimilar.

RW et all are talking about limiting one gender in what they may or may not do. The problem isn't that men can't chat up a women at 4am in an elevator in Dublin using the line "Don't take this the wrong way but ...". The problem is that once you start this nonsense of what is and is not appropriate in such a vague manner you open the floodgates to more nonsense.

I gave you my example of how I met my wife. You said it wasn't the same, how many of RW et al would agree ?

This is what is sexist. RW et al are living with this idea that women need to be treated with care when sex is mentioned. This stems from the old belief that women shouldn't sleep around, that women who do sleep around are 'dirty' whereas a man who does it is a 'legend'.

Well f$#! that. A woman has every right to sleep around, a woman has every right to say yes or no to such proposals and she has every right to make such proposals herself.

I don't know what the age gap is between us but I see my peers, female and male, as equals sexually, intellectually and otherwise. I don't see my female friends who sleep around as any different to my male friends who do so.

But that is not what RW et al are proposing or complaining about. They aren't talking about equality, they are taking about dividing people into groups.

I read the same **** from some of these so called rationalists (skepchick blog but not by RW) regarding minorities in our community. That a 'white man' should step down from a panel if a minority or a woman wanted to be on it.

My philosophy with this is the same as it is with sexism. I don't care what colour you are, I don't care what is in your pants. If the best people for the panel are 10 middle aged white men then that is who should be on the panel. If the best people for the panel are 10 black women then that is who should be on the panel.

I have no loyalty to my gender or race or financial class. I have a loyalty to my fellow human beings.

RW is talking about giving 'minorities' special rights which goes against the whole notion of equality both regarding race and sex.

axer · 20-07-2011 10:51am

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

How depressing that this has to be one of the few forums that turns into something more resembling a Bevis and Butt-head episode than a group of adult skeptics accepting that a number or women are trying to explain why there is a distinct lack of women in their movement, if not their forum.

The problem is it is hard to take Rebecca Watson seriously from the way she behaves. On one hand she obviously likes being sexualised (how else can you explain the pin-up photos and other photos and also the signed and branded thong and calling herself "skepchick") on the other hand a guy very politely asks her back to his room for coffee (maybe it was a proposition, maybe not - maybe she made the whole thing up, maybe we are hearing a biased one sided account of an event [yes, I am skeptical]) and she gets all worked up. She is obviously sending mixed signals here. Please dont suggest I am making a "oh she wore a short skirt so it was her fault she got raped" type of argument since nothing of the sort happened here - it was all very polite.

The point is that she gives out about a guy "sexualising her like that" (even though it really wasn't an event at all) but at the same time she gives the impression that she doesn't mind being sexually objectified (she has even posted on JREF forums saying she doesnt mind random strangers hitting on her - granted I wouldn't do it in an elevator considering the violent harm she threatens).

It is also obvious that she is using all of this for self promotion:

So what are we supposed to think here? Its amazing that considering we are supposed to be a skeptical community (as such) that firstly her story was accepted by so many people just based on her version of events without any corroboration.

Surely you must be furious at Rebecca Watson for her hypocritical behaviour since her hypocrisy overshadows any points being made about encouraging women into the athiest/skeptical movement?

Ickle Magoo · 20-07-2011 11:00am

As if it's not already glaringly obvious, it's already been stated by pretty much every female poster on this thread that the issue goes well above and beyond RW and her comments - as the rape jokes and boys club stuff here demonstrates amply; dismissing RW's specific points completely ignores the wider issue that many women who haven't been in calenders or sells their underwear identify with.

No, I'm not furious with RW in the least, she's one woman, I'm another - we are not part of some hive-mind, however on this topic we, along with many others, both see an issue. She has much more clout to deal with it - all I can do is report posts and try in vain, outnumbered 20-1 on demographics alone never mind the dismissive retorts that relate to gender and ironically highlight the very issue in question, to put my perspective across.

robindch · 20-07-2011 11:05am

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

How depressing that this has to be one of the few forums that turns into something more resembling a Bevis and Butt-head episode than a group of adult skeptics accepting that a number or women are trying to explain why there is a distinct lack of women in their movement, if not their forum.

In all fairness, it was Watson who brought up the topic of rape in the first instance, after having made a number of highly dubious (and quite insulting) comments about the nature of the guys in the skeptic and atheist movements. I suspect that most guys (at least, and I suspect many women too) find what she claimed to be as completely tasteless as most people find these rape "jokes".

While one of the rape "jokes" has been quite rightly deleted, I think it's arguably appropriate to leave in the others. Not because they are in the slightest bit funny, because they certainly are not. Nor because the topic of rape itself is in any way amusing, because it is not. But because they ably demonstrate what happens when somebody chooses to radicalize a debate.

Watson started off this debate with a good degree of public support for a reasonable point of view, but instead of building upon that for the good of the excellent aim she claimed to be supporting, instead, she chose to create an ugly "us and them" debating environment before being shown to be a complete and total hypocrite.

I think she's done a fair degree of damage to her professed goal (though not what her actual goal, which appears to be the promotion of one Rebecca Watson), I suspect that most people will learn that the kind of disjunctive, spit-in-your-face debating style that Watson has engaged in, and tacitly encouraged, over the last two weeks or so, really does nobody any good.

Ickle Magoo · 20-07-2011 11:06am

virmilitaris wrote: »

Is it as depressing as discovering that one of us refuses to see they might be wrong ?

Lol.

Yeah, definitely - and only slightly less depressing that several posters repeatedly addressing the same fallacious straw-men continually trotted out by the same posters as new and impressive argument.

robindch · 20-07-2011 11:10am

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

[...]

Do any of the following concern you:

Her comments about men in the skeptics and atheist movements?
Her comments about men and rape?
The fact that she's been shown to be a complete hypocrite?
Her nasty debating style?

The justice of her original cause is one topic, and it's one I broadly (if not completely) agree with you. Her subsequent and background conduct is a disgrace and it's this latter stuff which is what most of the guys on this thread are cheesed off, or amused, by.

Ickle Magoo · 20-07-2011 11:17am

robindch wrote: »

In all fairness, it was Watson who brought up the topic of rape in the first instance, after having made a number of highly dubious (and quite insulting) comments about the nature of the guys in the skeptic and atheist movements. I suspect that most guys (at least, and I suspect many women too) find what she claimed to be as completely tasteless as most people find these rape "jokes".

I think it was RD who brought rape into it - RW had made no mention of rape. I think it was then brought into the discussion to try to show that women feeling vulnerable consider rape a very real threat.

robindch wrote: »

While one of the rape "jokes" has been quite rightly deleted, I think it's arguably appropriate to leave in the others. Not because they are in the slightest bit funny, because they certainly are not. Nor because the topic of rape itself is in any way amusing, because it is not. But because they ably demonstrate what happens when somebody chooses to radicalize a debate.

So why not leave them all in? All I see is a thread where women have been trying to give their perspective as to why they are a minority in a movement and that movement has then lapsed into rape jokes as if to demonstrate exactly why many women would want to give such a movement and it's members a wide berth.

I've defended atheists and this forum more times than I care to remember from those claiming it was immaturity and puerile humour for a privileged few. Way to prove their point.

robindch wrote: »

Watson started off this debate with a good degree of public support for a reasonable point of view, but instead of building upon that for the good of the excellent aim she claimed to be supporting, instead, she chose to create an ugly "us and them" debating environment before being shown to be a complete and total hypocrite.

She didn't create an us and them. Those trying to give clear and concise reasons for women feeling differently in specific situations and to a group claiming to be welcome to them ridiculing, making gender based comments and rape jokes is what turned it into an us and them.

robindch wrote: »

I think she's done a fair degree of damage to her professed goal (though not what her actual goal, which appears to be the promotion of one Rebecca Watson), I suspect that most people will learn that the kind of disjunctive, spit-in-your-face debating style that Watson has engaged in, and tacitly encouraged, over the last two weeks or so, really does nobody any good.

I disagree - I think a lot of people look at a small island in which this all kicked off in and seems to contain the majority of those defending quite pitiably. I also think it's blown open an issue that until now has just been muttered about, written off as "the way things are" and brushed under the carpet - whatever her motives or how RW comes out of this I don't really care, I don't think that changes that a lot of people are quite grateful that someone at last got up and said something.

axer · 20-07-2011 11:17am

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

As if it's not already glaringly obvious, it's already been stated by pretty much every female poster on this thread that the issue goes well above and beyond RW and her comments - as the rape jokes and boys club stuff here demonstrates amply; dismissing RW's specific points completely ignores the wider issue that many women who haven't been in calenders or sells their underwear identify with.

But this issue was about her comments she was the one spearheading things in this case. She overshadowed other more reasonable comments since the foundation of this discussion coming out came from such a shakey point. With her blowing a "sexually objectified" argument out of proportion and making it high profile it will only damage the more reasonable argument being made by others since it will make people skeptical of future claims of being "sexually objectified" within the movement.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, I'm not furious with RW in the least, she's one woman, I'm another - we are not part of some hive-mind, however on this topic we, along with many others, both see an issue.

and other women do not see the issue e.g. Stef McGraw
I think you have also pin pointed the issue here - all women are not the same. Some like to get hit on others dont and so on - same with guys. So to make this guy out to be a creep for being nothing but polite is just wrong on so many levels especially when the person he asked to have coffee with specifically says she doesn't mind being hit on by a random stranger or shows she doesn't really have an issue with being sexually objectified. If you want to discuss a different point not based on RW's experiences then people should have ignored her like RD did and made a proper point with good solid examples instead but there was such strong support for her it overshadowed anyone that tried to do that.

Ickle Magoo · 20-07-2011 11:22am

robindch wrote: »

Do any of the following concern you:

Her comments about men in the skeptics and atheist movements?
Her comments about men and rape?
The fact that she's been shown to be a complete hypocrite?
Her nasty debating style?

The justice of her original cause is one topic, and it's one I broadly (if not completely) agree with you. Her subsequent and background conduct is a disgrace and it's this latter stuff which is what most of the guys on this thread are cheesed off, or amused, by.

Given that men here have commented on me being a mod of a forum primarily for ladies as way of dismissing my posts and made rape jokes - I'm far more concerned at that kind of behaviour in a forum I'm outnumbered in and is supposed to be open to all, than RW comments.

This current tact of trying to discredited her like that makes the whole furore any less of a movement-wide issue seems to me to be missing the point by a country mile.

Ickle Magoo · 20-07-2011 11:29am

axer wrote: »

But this issue was about her comments she was the one spearheading things in this case. She overshadowed other more reasonable comments since the foundation of this discussion coming out came from such a shakey point. With her blowing a "sexually objectified" argument out of proportion and making it high profile it will only damage the more reasonable argument being made by others since it will make people skeptical of future claims of being "sexually objectified" within the movement.

She made, what? A 30 second point in an eight minute video that then exploded into what we see today - she may have been one of the protagonists but it's complete madness to suggest this is an issue borne entirely of and relating only to, RW and elevatorguy.

axer wrote: »

and other women do not see the issue e.g. Stef McGraw

But most do - read the blogs, read the other forums - there are surely enough women in agreement that it should be something the atheist movement is sitting up and taking note of - not cementing their detractors opinions with dismissing gender based sniggers and rape jokes.

axer wrote: »

I think you have also pin pointed the issue here - all women are not the same. Some like to get hit on others dont and so on - same with guys. So to make this guy out to be a creep for being nothing but polite is just wrong on so many levels especially when the person he asked to have coffee with specifically says she doesn't mind being hit on by a random stranger or shows she doesn't really have an issue with being sexually objectified. If you want to discuss a different point not based on RW's experiences then people should have ignored her like RD did and made a proper point with good solid examples instead but there was such strong support for her it overshadowed anyone that tried to do that.

It's not about being polite; it's about social skills, manners, it's about general and specific consideration - it's about accepting there are a minority of women in your ranks and acknowledging doing your level best to make them feel vulnerable or pissed off is a dumb move.

axer · 20-07-2011 11:31am

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

This current tact of trying to discredited her like that makes the whole furore any less of a movement-wide issue seems to me to be missing the point by a country mile.

This topic is about what happened to RW which drowned out any other reasonable points being made about sexism and shone a bad light on feminism. This is RW's fault from the way she behaved. Her experience can be dismissed as evidence for what the real discussion should be about i.e. encouraging more women into the atheist/skeptic community and looking at barriers to that. Once we can dismiss her bs then the discussion should get back to reasonable discussion the only thing is I think she may have started things off very badly for this discussion.

axer · 20-07-2011 11:42am

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

She made, what? A 30 second point in an eight minute video that then exploded into what we see today - she may have been one of the protagonists but it's complete madness to suggest this is an issue borne entirely of and relating only to, RW and elevatorguy.

She didn't just make a 30 second point but she helped encourage this whole mess with her subsequent comments and behaviours. PZ Myers was another idiot here but she backed what he said too. RD was correct in that her event should be dismissed as a non-event so lets really focus on real events. If we can see real sexism etc in the movement then that would be an event though but RW's event was not that.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But most do - read the blogs, read the other forums - there are surely enough women in agreement that it should be something the atheist movement is sitting up and taking note of - not cementing their detractors opinions with dismissing gender based sniggers and rape jokes.

I'm not sure how you are quantifying here. The jokes being made here were about the stupid comments being made about idiots blowing this all out of proportion. It was actually highlighting that their ridiculousness was making a joke out of a serious topic.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's not about being polite; it's about social skills, manners, it's about general and specific consideration - it's about accepting there are a minority of women in your ranks and acknowledging doing your level best to make them feel vulnerable or pissed off is a dumb move.

This works both ways and from my experience any time one gender out numbers another they both behave the same way. I am not sure how this is going to change as it appears there cannot be one set rule since everyone is different e.g. some women like getting hit on, others don't, some guys like getting hit on, others dont. I am not sure how we define the correct rules for these people, who are all different, to follow since there does not seem to be specific rules followed each time two people hook up.

Can we dismiss RW's whole thing then as a non-event and discuss the real issue with any reference to her "experience"? Surely at this stage you can see that she is a complete hypocritical attention seeker?

Ickle Magoo · 20-07-2011 11:43am

axer wrote: »

This topic is about what happened to RW which drowned out any other reasonable points being made about sexism and shone a bad light on feminism. This is RW's fault from the way she behaved. Her experience can be dismissed as evidence for what the real discussion should be about i.e. encouraging more women into the atheist/skeptic community and looking at barriers to that. Once we can dismiss her bs then the discussion should get back to reasonable discussion the only thing is I think she may have started things off very badly for this discussion.

Oh FFS, if you think a movement made up of majority men making rape jokes and dismissing women as hysterical rape accusers in lieu of listening to what many women are saying gives feminism a bad name then we're clearly on different interwebs. RW hasn't drowned out the reasonable points by anyone who isn't determined to limit the scope of discussion to them - they blew up out of her comment and became much bigger than she was.

TBH, I think RW is a side-show in this now for the most part and that's mostly down to her own actions. Her initial comments resulted in an explosion of debate that the rest of the world took on - still pettily bickering over what she's come out with now and why that makes the wider arguments worth neatly sweeping under the carpet so we can get back to self-righteous backslapping and lolcats, is what this threads about, let's be honest.

axer · 20-07-2011 11:55am

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Oh FFS, if you think a movement made up of majority men making rape jokes and dismissing women as hysterical rape accusers in lieu of listening to what many women are saying gives feminism a bad name then we're clearly on different interwebs. RW hasn't drowned out the reasonable points by anyone who isn't determined to limit the scope of discussion to them - they blew up out of her comment and became much bigger than she was.

"A majority of men making rape jokes and dismissing women as hysterical rape accusers"
You see you just did what you are accusing the "majority of men" in the movement of doing.

She blew up her comment and tried to get as big as the debate became in order to make something out of herself. It worked to a certain extent where she has more people listening to her but from a professional point of view it has showed her up to be an attention seeking hypocrite who won't be taken seriously.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

TBH, I think RW is a side-show in this now for the most part and that's mostly down to her own actions. Her initial comments resulted in an explosion of debate that the rest of the world took on - still pettily bickering over what she's come out with now and why that makes the wider arguments worth neatly sweeping under the carpet so we can get back to self-righteous backslapping and lolcats, is what this threads about, let's be honest.

This thread was solely about the shi'tstorm from the first post on. Then it became more than that but she had ruined the debate from the get go since the whole debate originated from a non-event which RD dismissed as a non-event but because many people still won't admit that it was a non-event it is still hanging over the debate.

Ickle Magoo · 20-07-2011 12:08pm

axer wrote: »

She didn't just make a 30 second point but she helped encourage this whole mess with her subsequent comments and behaviours. PZ Myers was another idiot here but she backed what he said too. RD was correct in that her event should be dismissed as a non-event so lets really focus on real events. If we can see real sexism etc in the movement then that would be an event though but RW's event was not that.

And round we go again. I disagree...you want more women in the movement - not defending boorish behaviour likely to be found off-puting and rude as being perfectly acceptable would be right on up there. RD not only alienated RW - he and all who agree also alienate and put off any women who agreed with RW's initial summation.

axer wrote: »

I'm not sure how you are quantifying here. The jokes being made here were about the stupid comments being made about idiots blowing this all out of proportion. It was actually highlighting that their ridiculousness was making a joke out of a serious topic.

Does it not strike you as being even a little bit ironic that when the wider topic under discussion is women being put off becoming a bigger part of the atheist & skeptic communities that dismissing their views, sniggering and rape jokes are trotted out? Can you not see just how inappropriate that is?

axer wrote: »

This works both ways and from my experience any time one gender out numbers another they both behave the same way. I am not sure how this is going to change as it appears there cannot be one set rule since everyone is different e.g. some women like getting hit on, others don't, some guys like getting hit on, others dont. I am not sure how we define the correct rules for these people, who are all different, to follow since there does not seem to be specific rules followed each time two people hook up.

How can it change? Easy. I'm not sure if I'm depressed or gladdened to see that elsewhere the message got through last week.

The atheist COMMUNITY can see to it that accusations that they think women are X, Y or Z or just good for a leg-over aren't propagated further by their own actions of dismissal on gender grounds and deeming rape and women's general safety fears a topic worth no more consideration than clambering to make jokes over and laugh about.

axer wrote: »

Can we dismiss RW's whole thing then as a non-event and discuss the real issue with any reference to her "experience"? Surely at this stage you can see that she is a complete hypocritical attention seeker?

No, I won't. It wasn't a non-event. How many women do you think want to attend atheist/skeptic conferences now that such they've been declared open day for leg-over fodder, whatever the time, whatever the scenario?

Morag · 20-07-2011 12:18pm

Ickle Magoo there are none so blind as those who will not see.

The lady has posted pics of her under wear and pics of her in a riské manner, that is all that is needed to devalue her to a level of being a whore in certain people's mind, which means she has no credibility what so ever, and sure whore's can't be raped or complain about being sexually harassed or sexually objectified.

This is what the thread has become, discredit her as she is human and flawed and seems to think that in the 21st century she can be a sexual person and not be treated as a whore. How dumb/naive was she?

How dumb/naive are we to think that 'enlightened' people can see the difference and be smart enough to know there are times and places where this type of banter is counter productive. At least the papists have Eve to blame, seems many atheists have rejected the fables but not the lessons in them on how to treat women.

axer · 20-07-2011 12:26pm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And round we go again. I disagree...you want more women in the movement - not defending boorish behaviour likely to be found off-puting and rude as being perfectly acceptable would be right on up there. RD not only alienated RW - he and all who agree also alienate and put off any women who agreed with RW's initial summation.

But her event was a non-event - that is what RD made a point about - that is all he made the point about. It wasn't sexism - it wasn't anything like that. This is what I mean by the RW issue still hangs over the whole debate and has ruined it from becoming just about the issue of encouraging more women into the movement.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Does it not strike you as being even a little bit ironic that when the wider topic under discussion is women being put off becoming a bigger part of the atheist & skeptic communities that dismissing their views, sniggering and rape jokes are trotted out? Can you not see just how inappropriate that is?

All the jokes I have seen have been in reaction to (and to show) how crazy some comments have been made by some people equating the elevator incident to rape or total blowing it out of proportion.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

How can it change? Easy. I'm not sure if I'm depressed or gladdened to see that elsewhere the message got through last week.

The atheist COMMUNITY can see to it that accusations that they think women are X, Y or Z or just good for a leg-over aren't propagated further by their own actions of dismissal on gender grounds and deeming rape and women's general safety fears a topic worth no more consideration than clambering to make jokes over and laugh about.

These jokes as I can see it ... actually the best way I can describe it is - have you ever watched an episode of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart"? He is constantly making jokes out of very serious issues when things are blown way out of proportion by one side - he usually does a skit or something bringing it even further out of proportion the other side to show how ridiculus it all is to be blowing anything out of proportion and not just discussing the issues at hand in a rational manner. This is how I see many of the Rape "jokes" that I saw in the last page of this thread.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, I won't. It wasn't a non-event. How many women do you think want to attend atheist/skeptic conferences now that such they've been declared open day for leg-over fodder, whatever the time, whatever the scenario?

Except nobody has declared "open day for leg-over". In fact as a guy I would be afraid to talk to women at atheist events in case I get accused of sexually objectifying them etc.

You can see now why the initial RW event is still over shadowing and ruining (imo) the real debate on encouraging more women into the atheist/skeptic movement.

Another extremely important point I want to make is that the only thing in common between atheists is a lack of belief in a god(s) thus it is unfair for all these generalisations to go on as they are not productive.

I recently watched this video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfA5AZutpCs
which I thought summed it up nicely (around the 4 minute mark but the whole video is good). There is sexism and generalisations in the movement coming from both sides but really these have nothing to do with the movement but are really everywhere.

Dades · 20-07-2011 12:27pm

Ickle - there's over 700 posts on this thread. It's not fair to dismiss the whole thing as a den for childish and inappropriate remarks because a small number of poster see recent 'revelations' as justification of their view.

I've deleted posts already and will continue to do so where appropriate.

Sharrow wrote: »

This is what the thread has become, discredit her as she is human and flawed and seems to think that in the 21st century she can be a sexual person and not be treated as a whore. How dumb/naive was she?

Who exactly is treating her as a whore? The elevator guy or the people that think it's a bit rich her complaining of objectification?

Just curious.

axer · 20-07-2011 12:31pm

Sharrow wrote: »

The lady has posted pics of her under wear and pics of her in a riské manner, that is all that is needed to devalue her to a level of being a whore in certain people's mind, which means she has no credibility what so ever, and sure whore's can't be raped or complain about being sexually harassed or sexually objectified.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Thank you for posting this as I couldn't have made the point any clearer than this example.

Nobody from what I can see on this thread has devalued her to the level of being a whore. People are simply making the point that she is a hypocrite to say she doesn't want people to sexually objectify her but at the same time she poses semi-naked and calls herself a sexy skepchick thus in fact sexual objectifying herself.

Sharrow wrote: »

This is what the thread has become, discredit her as she is human and flawed and seems to think that in the 21st century she can be a sexual person and not be treated as a whore. How dumb/naive was she?

or......maybe people just saw how much of a hypocrite and think she should be called on her bs like anyone else.

Monty Burnz · 20-07-2011 12:32pm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

As if it's not already glaringly obvious, it's already been stated by pretty much every female poster on this thread that the issue goes well above and beyond RW and her comments - as the rape jokes and boys club stuff here demonstrates amply; dismissing RW's specific points completely ignores the wider issue that many women who haven't been in calenders or sells their underwear identify with.

Possibly the most transparent effort to move the goalposts ever attempted on Boards.ie...

kiffer · 20-07-2011 12:40pm

...
Rape jokes? FFS lads...
There's a Time and a place for... wait... no there isn't.

Men hit on women, sometimes at the wrong time, in the wrong place, people make mistakes. If you err on the side of caution and only hit on people you are sure are interested you never hit on anyone...

Isn't that why people use inuendo all the time? so that when you get rejected over and over again you can always say, "Hey, I was only asking if you wanted some coffee and a chat".
and the other person can say "no thanks it's a bit late for coffee"... Rather than say "wanna bump uglies" and "I'm repulsed/not interested in you, I have a can of mace".

fatmammycat · 20-07-2011 12:56pm

kiffer wrote: »

...
Rape jokes? FFS lads...
There's a Time and a place for... wait... no there isn't.

Men hit on women, sometimes at the wrong time, in the wrong place, people make mistakes. If you err on the side of caution and only hit on people you are sure are interested you never hit on anyone...

Isn't that why people use inuendo all the time? so that when you get rejected over and over again you can always say, "Hey, I was only asking if you wanted some coffee and a chat".
and the other person can say "no thanks it's a bit late for coffee"... Rather than say "wanna bump uglies" and "I'm repulsed/not interested in you, I have a can of mace".

Nicely put: there's a great little piece on 'social language' here which is interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3-son3EJTrU

Tordelback · 20-07-2011 1:02pm

What a mess. Let's get this straight:

- An online media person is vocally fed-up with being hit on at conferences, and rattled by the sexual and aggressive comments and e-mails she receives.

- A guy then makes (in my view) a polite verbal pass at her while they're alone and takes an equally polite 'no' as 'no'.

- She decides she's really had enough now, and uses her platform to ask men to stop doing this sort of thing, it makes her uncomfortable.

Have either of the two players done anything wrong up to this point? Maybe Lift Guy should have paid more attention to RW's previous output on the subject, maybe RW should have kept her subsequent remarks more general and less focussed on a specific innocent incident.

Anyway, everything up to this point seems pretty reasonable from both RW and Lift Guy, given their own personal contexts. Everything afterwards looks like hyperbole, misunderstanding and anger.

It's not about whether it's okay or not to politely ask adult women up to your room for coffee in general (it surely is), it's about the fact that Rebecca Watson, a specific woman in a specific position with the specific benefits and problems that accrue, had had enough of being propositioned, and said so publicly.

You can pretty much dismiss everything after that point as bone-headed nonsense. It doesn't matter who's 'first world', 'white', 'rich', 'male', or 'feminist'. Once you start generalising a tiny incident rooted in specifics into generalisations about rape, sexism, genital mutilation, privilege, inappropriate humour, all sense is lost.

Ickle Magoo · 20-07-2011 1:18pm

axer wrote: »

But her event was a non-event - that is what RD made a point about - that is all he made the point about. It wasn't sexism - it wasn't anything like that. This is what I mean by the RW issue still hangs over the whole debate and has ruined it from becoming just about the issue of encouraging more women into the movement.

It was such a non-event - it went on to evoke the furore it did? Is that really what you expect anyone to swallow? What is sexist is suggesting what is clearly not a non event for some women should be written off as no biggy while there are greater ills in the world while an issue for that particular man which also pales into insignificance when compared to other issues in the world is worthy of several best sellers and creating a movement around.

I still don't see any ruination done by RW other than to her own reputation/credence - nothing she has said or done then or since detracts from this clearly being a wider issue. The only ruination I see, is by those who are doing their level best to show the world that the movement is populated with those who have very little consideration for how vulnerable a female attendee may feel in lieu of trying to fabricate all manner of red-herrings and straw-men and preferring to ridicule and snigger over those, instead. Bravo.

axer wrote: »

All the jokes I have seen have been in reaction to (and to show) how crazy some comments have been made by some people equating the elevator incident to rape or total blowing it out of proportion.

These jokes as I can see it ... actually the best way I can describe it is - have you ever watched an episode of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart"? He is constantly making jokes out of very serious issues when things are blown way out of proportion by one side - he usually does a skit or something bringing it even further out of proportion the other side to show how ridiculus it all is to be blowing anything out of proportion and not just discussing the issues at hand in a rational manner. This is how I see many of the Rape "jokes" that I saw in the last page of this thread.

So knowing there are a minority of women in your movement and in your forum means making rape jokes about women is appropriate to show the ridiculousness of those couple of women [and all the others on the net] blowing everything all you guys see as being out of proportion and being so irrational and all? I see.

axer wrote: »

Except nobody has declared "open day for leg-over". In fact as a guy I would be afraid to talk to women at atheist events in case I get accused of sexually objectifying them etc.

You have posters declaring that any woman complaining of being followed into a lift at 4am and having a one-liner thrown at them is ridiculous, hysterical, a liar, trying to prevent the propagation of the species, ruining the dating habits of your average male, etc, etc - it's very much been declared open-day at such events by many - perhaps the mission was to reduce the numbers of women attending such events and thus solving the problem of who to objectify?

axer wrote: »

You can see now why the initial RW event is still over shadowing and ruining (imo) the real debate on encouraging more women into the atheist/skeptic movement.

Still no. Still she was the catalyst for a bigger expression of disappointment in the movement by other women - and men. I didn't see a debate up until RD made his post so I suppose we should blame him for causing all this smoke infront of what was a clearly wide-spread and obvious discussion to get more female posters in here and women in the movement in general....eh....?

axer wrote: »

Another extremely important point I want to make is that the only thing in common between atheists is a lack of belief in a god(s) thus it is unfair for all these generalisations to go on as they are not productive.

I recently watched this video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfA5AZutpCs
which I thought summed it up nicely (around the 4 minute mark but the whole video is good). There is sexism and generalisations in the movement coming from both sides but really these have nothing to do with the movement but are really everywhere.

I don't think acknowledging 'isms' exist all over is a particularly good or logical reason for the encouraged perpetuation in one particular movement. If a particular movement is trying to attract more women to their movement then they could do with stamping out some of their own well documented 'isms' - as they could do with laying off the common mocking and derisory tones used with the minority they are trying to look more attractive to.

Monty Burnz · 20-07-2011 1:19pm

Tordelback wrote: »

You can pretty much dismiss everything after that point as bone-headed nonsense. It doesn't matter who's 'first world', 'white', 'rich', 'male', or 'feminist'. Once you start generalising a tiny incident rooted in specifics into generalisations about rape, sexism, genital mutilation, privilege, inappropriate humour, all sense is lost.

Be gone, and take your common sense with you!

Ickle Magoo · 20-07-2011 1:22pm

Dades wrote: »

Ickle - there's over 700 posts on this thread. It's not fair to dismiss the whole thing as a den for childish and inappropriate remarks because a small number of poster see recent 'revelations' as justification of their view....

And if I was just referring to this thread then you'd be right...what RW highlighted was the men in the movement have to ask themselves why they greatly outnumber women. Why is there only a handful of women who regularly post on this forum? Is it a welcoming and respectful arena for women to enter into? I must have a thousand posts in this forum - I don't even notice a lot of what others find offensive, I've got a pretty thick skin and I'd have to say sometimes it isn't and this has never been more obvious than on this particular topic. Surely THAT should be the topic of debate?

expectationlost · 20-07-2011 1:33pm

Sharrow wrote: »

/facepalm

When you are the minority gender in a group/association and a substantive percentage of the other gender uses the gatherings as a chance to hit on you, they are sexualising you and making an issue of your gender.

When this happens enough to a person they will leave as the group/association becomes a sexual intimidating place to be, which means less people join up and it's harder for the group/association to achieve it's goals, it's a behaviour which is holding the group/association/cause back.

Part of her talk was about this and about her experience as a woman who has had this happen to her time and time again. And then some idiot does exactly that.

There had been at that very same conference a panel on this, and yet this genius still perpetuated this behaviour.

As for Dawkins, he doesn't get it, he's trivialising it and has never experienced it and doens't see it as a problem. He's as much of a genius as the other guy. He has no comprehension of what it's like and so is dismissive.

very good points, well argued

was the guy that cracked on to her at her panel?

robindch · 20-07-2011 1:34pm

Sharrow wrote: »

The lady has posted pics of her under wear and pics of her in a riské manner, that is all that is needed to devalue her to a level of being a whore in certain people's mind,

You're making quite a serious allegation here -- can you please name the poster or posters who have "devalued" her to what I imagine you believe is the lesser status of a prostitute?

Sharrow wrote: »

which means she has no credibility what so ever,

Are you implying that a prostitute has no credibility?

Sharrow wrote: »

and sure whore's can't be raped or complain about being sexually harassed or sexually objectified.

At the risk of having to repeat what I've said several times and others have posted too, this isn't about whether whores can't have these things happen to them -- I've worked in a homeless shelter here in Dublin and have seen what happens to prostitutes who work on the street (have you?).

Since last night, this debate has been (on one side at least) specifically about somebody who objectifies herself, then complains when somebody else does it. That's hypocrisy, irrespective of what else is involved in this debate.

Can you see or accept this point of view?

axer · 20-07-2011 1:43pm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It was such a non-event - it went on to evoke the furore it did? Is that really what you expect anyone to swallow? What is sexist is suggesting what is clearly not a non event for some women should be written off as no biggy while there are greater ills in the world while an issue for that particular man which also pales into insignificance when compared to other issues in the world is worthy of several best sellers and creating a movement around.

Except there are plenty of women out there that think it is a non-event too and there are guys out there that think it is an event. Clearly there are no split down the middle consensus here. This specific incident is a non-event. I am not talking about sexism etc in general. I think there are points to be made with regards that but yet again RW's non-event is still hanging over any debate on the wider issues.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I still don't see any ruination done by RW other than to her own reputation/credence - nothing she has said or done then or since detracts from this clearly being a wider issue. The only ruination I see, is by those who are doing their level best to show the world that the movement is populated with those who have very little consideration for how vulnerable a female attendee may feel in lieu of trying to fabricate all manner of red-herrings and straw-men and preferring to ridicule and snigger over those, instead. Bravo.

You say that RW has done damage to her reputation/credence. Care to expand further on that? As long as her "incident" hangs over the debate on the wider issues it will be impossible to properly debate the wider issues.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So knowing there are a minority of women in your movement and in your forum means making rape jokes about women is appropriate to show the ridiculousness of those couple of women [and all the others on the net] blowing everything all you guys see as being out of proportion and being so irrational and all? I see.

It wasn't just women making ridiculus statements - what makes you think it was? For example, PZ Myers was making a lot of ridiculus statements.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You have posters declaring that any woman complaining of being followed into a lift at 4am and having a one-liner thrown at them is ridiculous, hysterical, a liar, trying to prevent the propagation of the species, ruining the dating habits of your average male, etc, etc - it's very much been declared open-day at such events by many - perhaps the mission was to reduce the numbers of women attending such events and thus solving the problem of who to objectify?

There is hysteria on both sides from both males and females so it hasn't really changed anything.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Still no. Still she was the catalyst for a bigger expression of disappointment in the movement by other women - and men. I didn't see a debate up until RD made his post so I suppose we should blame him for causing all this smoke infront of what was a clearly wide-spread and obvious discussion to get more female posters in here and women in the movement in general....eh....?

Her experience was a non-event so there was nothing to debate on. If for instance she had gotten into the lift and the guy had persisted or had not accepted no as an answer or had not treated her as an equal then there might have been a debate to be had from the incident but those things didnt happen so maybe thats why there was not a debate to be had.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think acknowledging 'isms' exist all over is a particularly good or logical reason for the encouraged perpetuation in one particular movement. If a particular movement is trying to attract more women to their movement then they could do with stamping out some of their own well documented 'isms' - as they could do with laying off the common mocking and derisory tones used with the minority they are trying to look more attractive to.

Sorry I didn't see all the well document 'ism's - care to elaborate? I believe there are at least some women out there that I am aware of that don't feel held back by any 'ism's in the movement also so I am curious to see all these well documented 'ism's.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And if I was just referring to this thread then you'd be right...what RW highlighted was the men in the movement have to ask themselves why they greatly outnumber women. Why is there only a handful of women who regularly post on this forum? Is it a welcoming and respectful arena for women to enter into? I must have a thousand posts in this forum - I don't even notice a lot of what others find offensive, I've got a pretty thick skin and I'd have to say sometimes it isn't and this has never been more obvious than on this particular topic. Surely THAT should be the topic of debate?

TBH I didn't know you were a female until this thread - i didn't care either just like I don't know who else is a female in this forum. Why is it automatically the men's fault that there are not more women in the movement? Would it not be an equal 50:50 effort to get more women into the movement or even just get more people?

fatmammycat · 20-07-2011 1:48pm

I would have thought it less about being a hypocrite and more about context. If she complained about being hit on by strangers at 4 am in strange cities, and then went ON to hit on strangers at 4pm, yada yada, then I'd think 'wow hypocrite'
Whether she poses naked or not is not the issue. She felt sexualised in that lift at that moment, being naked a different time or a bunch of different times does not preclude that.

Monty Burnz · 20-07-2011 1:57pm

fatmammycat wrote: »

I would have thought it less about being a hypocrite and more about context. If she complained about being hit on by strangers at 4 am in strange cities, and then went ON to hit on strangers at 4pm, yada yada, then I'd think 'wow hypocrite'
Whether she poses naked or not is not the issue. She felt sexualised in that lift at that moment, being naked a different time or a bunch of different times does not preclude that.

I think it's more like this:

She poses in 'sexy' outfits on the web and calendars, encouraging others to see her as a sexual being. Then she complains when someone sees her as a sexual being (assuming that the coffee was not just coffee).

If that's not hypocrisy, we're going to have to throw the dictionary out the window.

robindch · 20-07-2011 2:01pm

fatmammycat wrote: »

Whether she poses naked or not is not the issue. She felt sexualised in that lift at that moment, being naked a different time or a bunch of different times does not preclude that.

One last time.

She complained about feeling "objectified" after objectifying herself.

Sorry, but that means that she alone is a hypocrite because her initial complaint -- particularly in the light of Axer's evidence that she likes "the occasional advance" -- was quite hypocritical.

This says nothing about whether other women do or do not feel objectified, whether other women do or do not enjoy having guys say things to them in lifts, etc etc etc etc. This is about Watson alone.

fatmammycat · 20-07-2011 2:06pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think it's more like this:

She poses in 'sexy' outfits on the web and calendars, encouraging others to see her as a sexual being. Then she complains when someone sees her as a sexual being (assuming that the coffee was not just coffee).

If that's not hypocrisy, we're going to have to throw the dictionary out the window.

Seeing her as a sexual being in that context, fine. Hitting on her in a lift at 4am, not fine. It's not being hypocritical at all. No woman has to be open to being sexualised at all time, DESPITE, wearing sexy outfits, being naked, hell having sex from time to time.

fatmammycat · 20-07-2011 2:08pm

robindch wrote: »

One last time.

She complained about feeling "objectified" after objectifying herself.

Sorry, but that means that she alone is a hypocrite because her initial complaint -- particularly in the light of Axer's evidence that she likes "the occasional advance" -- was quite hypocritical.

This says nothing about whether other women do or do not feel objectified, whether other women do or do not enjoy having guys say things to them in lifts, etc etc etc etc. This is about Watson alone.

Enjoying the occasional advance does not equal being open for advance at all times.

robindch · 20-07-2011 2:09pm

fatmammycat wrote: »

Seeing her as a sexual being in that context, fine. Hitting on her in a lift at 4am, not fine. It's not being hypocritical at all. No woman has to be open to being sexualised at all time, DESPITE, wearing sexy outfits, being naked, hell having sex from time to time.

fatmammycat wrote: »

Enjoying the occasional advance does not equal being open for advance at all times.

I'm sure nobody disagrees with you. I certainly don't.

However, I was discussing the word "objectified". See my previous post.

Otherwise, I give up trying to explain this point.

Monty Burnz · 20-07-2011 2:09pm

fatmammycat wrote: »

Seeing her as a sexual being in that context, fine. Hitting on her in a lift at 4am, not fine. It's not being hypocritical at all. No woman has to be open to being sexualised at all time, DESPITE, wearing sexy outfits, being naked, hell having sex from time to time.

Is there supposed to be an on/off switch that third parties can see? Or should third parties just ask, and accept the answer?

As has been raised many times already on this thread, it's not unknown for casual sexual encounters to occur after late night drinking sessions in hotels. In fact, it's rather common (am I the only person who was ever at a wedding?)..

fatmammycat · 20-07-2011 2:12pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Is there supposed to be an on/off switch that third parties can see? Or should third parties just ask, and accept the answer?

As has been raised many times already on this thread, it's not unknown for casual sexual encounters to occur after late night drinking sessions in hotels. In fact, it's rather common (am I the only person who was ever at a wedding?)...

I understand that perfectly. And has has also been brought up MANY times in this thread, Rebecca Watson did not appreciate being hit on at 4am by a stranger. If she performed the nutcracker naked as a jaybird in the middle of Manhatten the week before, it would make no difference to how SHE felt in that lift at that moment.