Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

swampgas wrote: »

I simply can't quite comprehend how so many people cannot get into their heads how being propositioned in a lift might be intimidating, perhaps even scary. I think Ciderman described it quite well a while back.

I don't think that someone should (necessarily) make a fuss about it if nothing actually happened, but to suggest that a woman in a lift with a man she doesn't know should just be all chilled out is just ... bizarre.

Maybe I'm coming at it from a different angle - I'm the nicest guy in the world (really!) but I'm a big, beardy, scruffy looking guy. Ever since I've been a teenager men, never mind women, occasionally cross the street when they see me coming the other way. Maybe I'm a little more aware than most how a woman on her own can be intimidated simply by having a strange man in close proximity.

Personally, if a single woman I don't know gets in a lift, I will take the stairs, or wait for another lift to turn up. The idea of using it as an opportunity to proposition someone - however nicely/politely whatever - is (IMO) pretty damn insensitive.

* Glad I got that off my chest. I'm off to watch telly now. *

Its totally normal. The lift ride would last about 10 seconds, maybe twenty. The doors then open. It is then no longer a confined space. She can get out. The whole way of expressing the question is designed to be polite, normal, its an oblique reference to sex, giving people an out. The polite wording is designed to convey safety, as a rapist is probably not going to be polite.

How many rapes, or assaults have ever happened in lifts? Lifts where doors can open to any number of witnesses?

The whole thing is ludicrous. I personally don't proposition women in lifts, I don't proposition women anywhere - but I would get into a lift with a single woman. Female prejudice is their own business...

The idea that a lift arrives, and a woman is in there going in my direction, and I wave it on its way is just..absurd.

Kooli wrote: »

I don't think you can 'merge atheism with feminism', nor do I think that's their aim.

What on earth is a non-feminist? The only people I can think of who are non-feminists are people who are either sexist, misogynistic or bigoted.

If feminism is just a belief in equality of the sexes, mutual respect and an awareness of discriminatory practices resulting from patriarchy, how can you be non-feminist without being sexist, misogynistic or bigoted? Isn't a bit like saying 'I'm not pro-civil-rights, but that doesn't make me racist', or 'I'm not for equality for gay people, but don't call me a homophobe!'

I don't necessarily agree with everything coming from the FTB camp, but even if they are completely wrong, they have shone a light on a really, really ugly side of the atheist community. And even if they are completely wrong, that does not justify the constant misogynistic abuse and threats of rape they get. And the fact that many atheists find it difficult to condemn this abuse unequivocally and unconditionally says more about the community than the abuse itself.

Well you know, there is feminism, and then there is 'feminism'. Feminism is 'just a belief in equality of the sexes, mutual respect', a belief that people shouldn't be discriminated against due to their gender. 'Feminism' is a belief that people should not be discriminated against due to their gender AND THESE EXACT THINGS ARE WHAT COUNTS AS THAT DISCRIMINATION, AND THESE EXACT THINGS ARE THE REASONS THESE THINGS EXIST, AND THESE EXACT THINGS ARE WHAT MUST BE DONE TO CHANGE THINGS. AND IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THESE EXACT THINGS YOU ARE NOT A FEMINIST!!!
It goes far far beyond a belief that people should not be discriminated against due to their gender and requires the blind acceptance of a whole slew of hypothesis etc.

=======

Seems to me that Rebecca Watson et al's primary motivation is not 'encouraging more women into the community'. The vast majority of their behaviour and how they have gone about it suggests nothing of the sort.
Seems to me that Rebecca Watson and co's main goal, whether it actually began as such, or has just morphed into it, is to encourage more of 'their kind of women (or men) into the community'.
Seems to me that what they clearly want is to inseparably intertwine their own very specific sociopolitical ideology with the atheism/skeptic community and to route out anyone that doesn't fall into unquestioning line. Not feminism... or even 'feminism'... but their own specific brand of 'feminism'.

Least that's how it seems to me, as an outside observer.

Deleted User wrote: »

Everyone now going "OK, you were right, we were wrong in everything. Here, you guys run our events from now on" would be pretty sycophantic if the aim was purely to get more women to the conferences.

Yeeeeaah - I think we're getting wires crossed...my suggestion was to ignore them...

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair enough, and I'd agree with that. However ignoring them is hardly likely to get "the community", or the rest of it anyway, back in their good books and have them attend conferences etc.

I dunno...it might be a way of cutting out the worst of the childish bickering and to-ing and fro-ing which is in danger of becoming bigger than the movement itself and it's original message...and you can't just stick a plaster over this with some kind of blanket appeasement anyway at this stage, it's too big and too ugly.

There is a middle ground tho and I don't think it's too late to salvage it - but first "the community" who vastly outnumber SkepChick et al needs to get it's head around what kind of image they are currently portraying Vs what they'd like to (should be?) portraying...instead of bitching about/at a handful of bloggers.

strobe wrote: »

Well, whether judged inappropriate or nay by whom, is the question? And is the judgement of inappropriateness justified and reasonable. Someone standing on a pulpit and making blanket statements of appropriateness and dictating conducts of behaviour from on high is all a little religiousy for me and I can't help but laugh and then groan and then sigh when I see it happening in an atheist/skeptical movement.

I hear you - but then again, if someone was recanting this story about a religion having a minority who had experienced issues and that religion refused to accept they could in any way be at fault and a schism was forming as a result - wouldn't we be sitting here thinking "how typical"?

strobe wrote: »

But I of course agree Ickle, the middle ground of reasonableness is where 'we' want to be. But as I said, I don't see anything whatsoever to make me think that the Skepchick bandwagon have any interest whatsoever in that and are actively resisting any moves towards such.

I doubt everyone involved in that 'movement' feel or want such extreme ends but from just looking at what happened in the comments section that Zombrex was posting in there and then checking out some more of the same on site, it seems that anyone appealing for reason, or a middle ground, or anything other along the same lines is set upon instantly and labelled 'the enemy'. It's their way or no way, and their way I feel is what I mentioned in my other post.

See - this is just more of the same "they said this", "he did this first", "I'm only doing X cos they did Y" trench warfare I was posting about earlier. I haven't seen one side be rational and mature and the other ridiculous - they've both been as bad as each other and just as determined to paint the other as the bad guy.

I've said it already many times in this thread - if anyone thinks a movement is going to garner support by demanding it's members be afforded the right to make it's minority female attendees feel awkward or threatened then they need their heads read - and unfortunately that's the way it's coming across at the moment ( <- those reactions Mark ).

You can argue the logic or rationale or biology or anti-sexism behind it if you want - or field any number of female attendees who can't see an issue but that's the bottom line in terms of public perception. I think it's time to stop trying to fight to the last man (woman!) to determine who is RIGHT and move onto ensuring the word is out that having female attendees be made to feel awkward or threatened is not the kind of atmosphere or ethos the movement wants to promote - then ignore the lunatic fringe and move on.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I was responding to your specific use of "male" in "male attendees/community members" in your post, which was sort of making it out that only men where disagreeing with her.

"community members" is not limited to men - tho I can see with the male prefix for attendees it looks that way...it wasn't intended that way, I have a habit of just typing as I think and hitting post.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In order to move on, it must first be decided what "it" is.

Is "it" a terrible and long lived secret only one woman dared to bring up? Something we should all be ashamed of and which needs drastic immediate change?

Is "it" a lie, built out of the ego's of a vocal minority? But would that mean that self review couldn't or shouldn't be done anyway?

To be honest I couldn't care less what "it" is. I don't lose any sleep over what a few random bloggers do or don't do. It's up the "the community" if they want to improve their reputation and public opinion. If they want to spend the next 50 years in their opposing trenches determined to ensure that no changes are made, nobody gains an inch, no accessions are made in some kind of ridiculous online Ypres then they're welcome to it...but they really need to change their name.

And to prove I don't lose any sleep over it, I'm off to bed. Nite folks. o/