Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

pH

mewso wrote: »

That is quite simply pathetic from PZ Meyers.

You have failed if the person you're interested in calls your behavior creepy. That's where you need to step back and re-evaluate: you did something wrong. Decent Human Beings do not blame the other person, they recognize that they screwed up, accept their responsibility, and decide not to ever do that again.


This from the man who nailed a communion wafer to a wall, purely to show Catholics that their offence taken at another man "stealing" a wafer was all in their heads.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php

What would be the equivalent reaction here?
Well if Dawkins attended TAM and spent the entire event in the lift asking women back to his room for coffee, mocking Watson's initial expression of discomfort.

ghostchant

"The first thing you must know is that you haven't failed when the object of your desire says "no". That's a perfectly reasonable response, and even if you do everything exactly right, you're going to hear "no" more often than you do "yes". Accepting a refusal graciously is an important part of being a Decent Human Being.

You have failed if the person you're interested in calls your behavior creepy. That's where you need to step back and re-evaluate: you did something wrong. Decent Human Beings do not blame the other person, they recognize that they screwed up, accept their responsibility, and decide not to ever do that again." [PZ Myers]

Cool. So if she simply says no, and I "haven't failed", can go about my day/night as usual or do I have to scour teh internetz looking for a video blog by said girl, and check that she didn't call me 'creepy', thus causing me to re-evaluate my future dealings with the opposite sex?

axer

"The first thing you must know is that you haven't failed when the object of your desire says "no". That's a perfectly reasonable response, and even if you do everything exactly right, you're going to hear "no" more often than you do "yes". Accepting a refusal graciously is an important part of being a Decent Human Being.

You have failed if the person you're interested in calls your behavior creepy. That's where you need to step back and re-evaluate: you did something wrong. Decent Human Beings do not blame the other person, they recognize that they screwed up, accept their responsibility, and decide not to ever do that again." [PZ Myers]

So by that logic if I think PZ Myers is being an idiot here then PZ Myers should automatically accept that he is being an idiot here. It could never be that people have different levels of sensitivities, emotions, previous experiences or whatnot and that what one person finds creepy another might find spontaneous and exciting (or enjoy the attention or something like that).

So PZ Myers please accept the responsibility of ensuring that you do not say idiotic things again. Thanks.

Ickle Magoo

virmilitaris wrote: »

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

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

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

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

I'm not saying you should - and I'm not saying all women should go around presuming all men are going to do anything either; I don't know why everything I'm saying is being taken, inflated to cartoon proportions and thrown back at me with self-satisfaction as proof positive of my irrationality, when in truth it's just some weird misrepresentation of the point I'm actually making. Ironically, that's the very irrationality I'm talking about.

There is a reason why some women are ultra sensitive about personal safety and a reason some are more wary than others and that's just a sad fact of life - demanding they stop being wary or have no reason to be or are man-hating rape accusers doesn't change that.

virmilitaris wrote: »

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

I said bingo because it does make you more distrustful. Not that I look at every guy like he's about to do something but if someone I don't know deliberately corners me, follows me or does something that makes me question his motives - especially when I'm on my own it makes me anxious. I wouldn't want to do something that creeps someone out and makes them feel anxious, I'd be glad if they let me know ways to avoid doing that - especially if I was interested in having any kind of relations with them.

virmilitaris wrote: »

Congratulations, I think you're getting it.

If only I could say the same...

virmilitaris wrote: »

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

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

I don't think what happened to RW had anything to do with that either - I'm trying to explain why a lot of women would not appreciate being cornered in an enclosed area and propositioned and why that came out of this. Why she had every right to say it creeped her out - and why creeping out women shouldn't be deemed a nada and not worthy of discussion.

You are free to stick your head in the sand and suggest women are ridiculous if they are uneasy, claim it's everybody else that has caused the furore and nobody has a point bar the position you and those you agree with sit in - but you'd be wrong. That's why there are two sides to this.

virmilitaris wrote: »

Most women aren't controlled by their emotions.

Oh good, yet another comment that smacks of “No, they’re not logical like us,” - seriously, this is becoming a parody of what peeps are getting het up about. A bit of self-awareness, that's all I was talking about. *shrug*

virmilitaris

Oh good, yet another comment that smacks of "No, they're not logical like us," - seriously, this is becoming a parody of what peeps are getting het up about. A bit of self-awareness, that's all I was talking about. *shrug*

What are you talking about? I said "most women are not controlled by their emotions." How could you possibly take that badly? *hint* look back a few posts to where you defended Watons "most men are not rapists".

As for the rest of your post. Apologies but I'm on the phone again and its not easy to quote.

You said there's a reason why some women are ultra sensitive about safety etc and that we shpuldnt demand they not be. I haven't said anything of the kind. They can be as sensitive as they like, they can think and do as they like.

What I am saying is that applies both ways. RW can think or say whatever she likes but I refuse to be told what I can say or do with others because of one person. Her 'advice' if that's what it was was not that bad in and of itself. Its what naturally stems from it which is why so many people were asking you q's of similar situations including me.

Are we equal or not? Are men and women equal?

PZ brilliantly scored an own goal with his latest post. If I chat up some woman and she thinks I was creepy etc then its automatically my fault. Is that equality? And don't even attempt to suggest he is really talking and men and women suitors. We both know he means men approaching women.

liamw

"The first thing you must know is that you haven't failed when the object of your desire says "no". That's a perfectly reasonable response, and even if you do everything exactly right, you're going to hear "no" more often than you do "yes". Accepting a refusal graciously is an important part of being a Decent Human Being.

You have failed if the person you're interested in calls your behavior creepy. That's where you need to step back and re-evaluate: you did something wrong. Decent Human Beings do not blame the other person, they recognize that they screwed up, accept their responsibility, and decide not to ever do that again." [PZ Myers]

Shocked by the stupidity of this quote.

robindch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

How do I know what motivation of the design of the sentences were?

We can only speculate as to why she wrote those lines in the way she did.

However, writing a sentence like that is (as I've said before) an unbecoming, if standard, rhetorical trick and I think Watson is smart enough to know that. I would also like to have thought that saying that kind of thing was beneath her, however it seems it's not. Which is a pity as I think she's lost a lot of support by being so wretchedly square-jawed(*) during the whole furore that blew up following Dawkins stupid post.

Likewise with her recent demand for Dawkins to "recant" -- that's the kind of disjunctive quasi-religious language that's not going to get Dawkins onside in this. And again, I think she knows this quite well.

(*) used metaphorically and without reference to the actual shape of her jaw.

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

(*) used metaphorically and without reference to the actual shape of her jaw.

...careful now....

Ickle Magoo

virmilitaris wrote: »

What are you talking about? I said "most women are not controlled by their emotions." How could you possibly take that badly? *hint* look back a few posts to where you defended Watons "most men are not rapists".

Whatever her assumed motivation for writing it, watson's "most men are not rapists" was a general comment, your "most women" was a post directed at one poster - and I assume aimed specifically at having a pop at me...while also ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that unless you are some kind of robot, outside of the lab we are all governed by our emotions, to one degree or another.

virmilitaris wrote: »

As for the rest of your post. Apologies but I'm on the phone again and its not easy to quote.

You said there's a reason why some women are ultra sensitive about safety etc and that we shpuldnt demand they not be. I haven't said anything of the kind. They can be as sensitive as they like, they can think and do as they like.

What I am saying is that applies both ways. RW can think or say whatever she likes but I refuse to be told what I can say or do with others because of one person. Her 'advice' if that's what it was was not that bad in and of itself. Its what naturally stems from it which is why so many people were asking you q's of similar situations including me.

And as I've already said...men are free to be as boorish and oafish and insensitive as they like; but they can't then complain when they are called out on it. In respects of it being "one person" - if it was one lonely blogger who pointed out the issue and a single tLL mod who found resonance, would it have become anywhere near the controversial behemoth it has now?

There's a world of difference between being propositioned in an enclosed area and feeling vulnerable and accusing that particular man of being a rapist or potential rapist...in all honesty, very few have made that accusation yet it seems to be the common point to defend.

virmilitaris wrote: »

Are we equal or not? Are men and women equal?

No, I don't think they are...I think we have a long way to go before the it can be claimed that "men" and "women" are complete equals. Even if men and women ever become universal equals in all else; manners, courtesy, self-awareness and EQ will still play a part in base human interaction.

virmilitaris wrote: »

PZ brilliantly scored an own goal with his latest post. If I chat up some woman and she thinks I was creepy etc then its automatically my fault. Is that equality? And don't even attempt to suggest he is really talking and men and women suitors. We both know he means men approaching women.

If you approach a woman you want to impress, say one line and she leaves the encounter feeling completely creeped out, then you've failed spectacularly somewhere, certainly. I thought his post was quite funny; the exaggerated claims of decent-human-being, deliberately antithetical to the claims of hysterical over-reaction...I assumed he was being ironic and poking fun - as is his want.

robindch wrote:

We can only speculate as to why she wrote those lines in the way she did.

True.

robindch wrote:

However, writing a sentence like that is (as I've said before) an unbecoming, if standard, rhetorical trick and I think Watson is smart enough to know that. I would also like to have thought that saying that kind of thing was beneath her, however it seems it's not. Which is a pity as I think she's lost a lot of support by being so wretchedly square-jawed(*) during the whole furore that blew up following Dawkins stupid post.

I don't know - she seems to have gained a lot of admirers in the process too - or at least plenty who see merit to some of the points she's made...

robindch wrote:

Likewise with her recent demand for Dawkins to "recant" -- that's the kind of disjunctive quasi-religious language that's not going to get Dawkins onside in this. And again, I think she knows this quite well.

Does she care about getting Dawkins onside? She seems to be out for blood at this stage...

sponsoredwalk

robindch wrote: »

However, writing a sentence like that is (as I've said before) an unbecoming, if standard, rhetorical trick.

I find it hard to believe anybody would purposely use rhetorical tricks that

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

plant ideas in the readers head when discussing such a sensitive topic.

Nodin

mewso wrote: »

That is quite simply pathetic from PZ Meyers.

...I read it twice, as I thought initially it might be an attempt at humour. Nope.

robindch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Does she care about getting Dawkins onside?

If she's being honest in what she says, then yes, she should care.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

She seems to be out for blood at this stage...

That, unfortunately, is the problem.

Nodin

Dave! wrote: »

This really is getting quite ridiculous now...

It was ridiculous from the video.....if anything, we might all mentally bookmark the incident as an example of 'What happens if you feed Them'.

AhSureTisGrand

I actually prefer the creationism thread to this

virmilitaris

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Whatever her assumed motivation for writing it, watson's "most men are not rapists" was a general comment, your "most women" was a post directed at one poster - and I assume aimed specifically at having a pop at me...while also ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that unless you are some kind of robot, outside of the lab we are all governed by our emotions, to one degree or another.

You got all that from my little sentence but you are at a complete loss to even guess at the motivation behind Watsons ?

And actually it wasn't aimed at you. If you read my post again in sequence you will see the last things I said were:

virmilitaris (a non-rapist) wrote:

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

Most women aren't controlled by their emotions.

My last statement (and I would never usually say anything like that) served two functions;
1. I was talking about the feminists who went hysterical, I thought that was obvious.
2. I wanted to see if you would open your eyes to how it feels to read something like "Most men are not rapists" knowing full well it was phrased that way on purpose.

And as I've already said...men are free to be as boorish and oafish and insensitive as they like; but they can't then complain when they are called out on it.

To coin a phrase from across the fence. Amen.

Do you really think we want to be oafish, boorish or insensitive ? Do you really think that those are objective terms ?

I have talked to a few women in my day and what I've noticed is that, surprise surprise, women are individuals. What one woman (dare I say person) will take badly, another might take well. (I already admitted that most women would probably take EG's proposition badly if we believe Watsons telling of the story)

In respects of it being "one person" - if it was one lonely blogger who pointed out the issue and a single tLL mod who found resonance, would it have become anywhere near the controversial behemoth it has now?

What is the issue ? Because RW's issue seemed to be that some poor oaf awkwardly propositioned her in an elevator and she felt uncomfortable. A story worthy of front page news if ever I heard it. :pac:

But as I pointed out in my last post that is not the same issue that the hordes are arguing about.

No, I don't think they are...I think we have a long way to go before the it can be claimed that "men" and "women" are complete equals.

And who is preventing that ? As far as I can see nonsense like this only strengthens the differences.

For example, I just read someones blog, (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2011/07/why-we-have-to-talk-about-this.html) where some (married) man sent her a letter apologizing for telling her that her hair looked nice and she should put it on her profile.

Just because I say your hair looks nice doesn't mean I'm looking for entry to your pants!

I say things like that regularly to both male and female friends but now apparently it's sexist if I do it to a female

Ickle Magoo

virmilitaris wrote: »

You got all that from my little sentence but you are at a complete loss to even guess at the motivation behind Watsons ?

And actually it wasn't aimed at you. If you read my post again in sequence you will see the last things I said were:

You were quoting me - and responding to me - it wasn't an open blog.

virmilitaris wrote: »

My last statement (and I would never usually say anything like that) served two functions;
1. I was talking about the feminists who went hysterical, I thought that was obvious.
2. I wanted to see if you would open your eyes to how it feels to read something like "Most men are not rapists" knowing full well it was phrased that way on purpose.

And still, all people are governed by their emotions in some form or another - so it's a silly point. It's inferring female irrationality through doing something that is common behaviour to all humans...even skeptics/rationals.

Again, one on an open blog making a statement, the other directed at/after quoting a single female poster on a thread full of blokes...yeah, completely the same scenario - I don't know how I missed it.

virmilitaris wrote: »

To coin a phrase from across the fence. Amen.

Do you really think we want to be oafish, boorish or insensitive ? Do you really think that those are objective terms ?

I think it's unavoidable if you seek to dismiss, ignore and belittle how others feel...and yes, in some cases even in objective terms.

virmilitaris wrote: »

I have talked to a few women in my day and what I've noticed is that, surprise surprise, women are individuals. What one woman (dare I say person) will take badly, another might take well. (I already admitted that most women would probably take EG's proposition badly if we believe Watsons telling of the story)

If you believe? Nice. The old "assume everyone's lying until proven otherwise" eh? Don't you know, it's like totally wrong to make to assumptions about people - especially only based on their behaviour.

virmilitaris wrote: »

What is the issue ? Because RW's issue seemed to be that some poor oaf awkwardly propositioned her in an elevator and she felt uncomfortable. A story worthy of front page news if ever I heard it. :pac:

Who put it on the front page? Had it been acknowledged that elevatorguy was an oaf and thus she justifiably felt uncomfortable then I'd still be completely unaware of who skepchick is...if you want to blame someone for blowing this into the stratosphere then I think RW is fairly low down the list of culprits.

virmilitaris wrote: »

But as I pointed out in my last post that is not the same issue that the hordes are arguing about.

It seems to have highlighted a fairly wide-spread divide in the community - which is making lots of people look anything but rational or skeptical...that's what gives the story legs.

virmilitaris wrote: »

And who is preventing that ? As far as I can see nonsense like this only strengthens the differences.

There are lots of reasons for inequality - complaining about lack of forethought in sexual propositioning will never be held up as a block to gender equality though, let's be honest. Some of the responses to that complaint however...

virmilitaris wrote: »

For example, I just read someones blog, (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2011/07/why-we-have-to-talk-about-this.html) where some (married) man sent her a letter apologizing for telling her that her hair looked nice and she should put it on her profile.

Just because I say your hair looks nice doesn't mean I'm looking for entry to your pants!

I say things like that regularly to both male and female friends but now apparently it's sexist if I do it to a female

Do you think he's being serious or trying to undermine the point being made? I thought you guys were skeptics?

Also, did you read that blog - or did you just hone in on/have seen linked elsewhere the first thing you could use to dismiss it? She makes some good points, if a little shouty & over-exasperated in places...

virmilitaris

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You were quoting me - and responding to me - it wasn't an open blog.

So everything you write is direct at me when you quote me ?

And still, all people are governed by their emotions in some form or another - so it's a silly point.

Of course it's a silly point! I don't believe it at all! Didn't I just make that clear ??

I was trying to make you understand how it feels to have your "group" generalized in such a way.

I think it's unavoidable if you seek to dismiss, ignore and belittle how others feel...and yes, in some cases even in objective terms.

That is nonsense. Lots of things make lots of different people feel uncomfortable etc in lots of different ways. I live in Asia and feel uncomfortable because I get stared at and talked about simply because I'm a European. Would I be right to ask Asians not to do it ? Perhaps.

If someone told me that there were much more important issues to deal with would they be right ? Of course they would be.

If you believe? Nice. The old "assume everyone's lying until proven otherwise" eh?

Don't you agree that there are two sides to every story ? She's obviously telling it her way which could be quite different to how the guy seen it. People always do this.

I'm not saying I don't believe her, I'm saying I accept her version.

Do you think he's being serious or trying to undermine the point being made? I thought you guys were skeptics?

I don't know what he's being these days. I'm very disappointed with him lately.

Also, did you read that blog - or did you just hone in on/have seen linked elsewhere the first thing you could use to dismiss it? She makes some good points, if a little shouty & over-exasperated in places...

I did and I agree with some of her points. A lot of it is pure trash however.

Taking one example "We are trying to help you get laid". So that's a perfectly fine thing to say ? Think about it for a second. If a male blogger came out with something like that for women such as "We're trying to help you lose weight" or "We're trying to help you get a rich husband" etc.

This is what's wrong with this kind of feminism. On one side it takes offense at everything it possibly can, going out of its way to find offense, and on the other it sees no problem been sexist to men.

baalthor

virmilitaris wrote: »

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

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

Maybe you're not the kind of person they rape or beat up ?

virmilitaris

baalthor wrote: »

Maybe you're not the kind of person they rape or beat up ?

Rape probably not. Beat up, I don't see why I wouldn't be.

Rev Hellfire

baalthor wrote: »

Maybe you're not the kind of person they rape or beat up ?

Is there a kind of person who gets raped ?

Ickle Magoo

virmilitaris wrote: »

So everything you write is direct at me when you quote me ?

Why would I be quoting you other than to respond...to you and the points you make?

virmilitaris wrote: »

Of course it's a silly point! I don't believe it at all! Didn't I just make that clear ??

I was trying to make you understand how it feels to have your "group" generalized in such a way.

Make me understand? Are you having a laugh? I see my gender generalised all the time - wiminz this, feminazi that, lesbian man-haters, not serious discussion it's ooooh handbags ladies, on yer period luv, etc, etc, etc...childish and derogatory comments? Welcome to a day in my life! :pac:

Would the acceptable retort not be just to dismiss your concerns and suggest you grow a thicker skin before pointing to other bigger worldly ills, anyway?

virmilitaris wrote: »

That is nonsense. Lots of things make lots of different people feel uncomfortable etc in lots of different ways. I live in Asia and feel uncomfortable because I get stared at and talked about simply because I'm a European. Would I be right to ask Asians not to do it ? Perhaps.

If someone told me that there were much more important issues to deal with would they be right ? Of course they would be.

That's as may be, what makes it extra special in this instance is when many of the people saying there are more important issues to deal with are guilty of complaining about and indeed, creating an entire movement around things that many other people find hysterical over-reaction and irrelevant in the greater scheme of things...

virmilitaris wrote: »

Don't you agree that there are two sides to every story ? She's obviously telling it her way which could be quite different to how the guy seen it. People always do this.

I'm not saying I don't believe her, I'm saying I accept her version.

You are also arguing that I should acknowledge watson's motives in writing a particular way because it infers a link while deliberately choosing language which you must know does exactly the same thing...

virmilitaris wrote: »

I don't know what he's being these days. I'm very disappointed with him lately.

I did and I agree with some of her points. A lot of it is pure trash however.

Taking one example "We are trying to help you get laid". So that's a perfectly fine thing to say ? Think about it for a second. If a male blogger came out with something like that for women such as "We're trying to help you lose weight" or "We're trying to help you get a rich husband" etc.

Again, I wouldn't have an issue with it - by their very nature blogs are designed to be thrown out to the wider world and if some women are interested in those blogs or even pick up some useful tips, then more power to them.

virmilitaris wrote: »

This is what's wrong with this kind of feminism. On one side it takes offense at everything it possibly can, going out of its way to find offense, and on the other it sees no problem been sexist to men.

And you could easily reverse those sentiments and it would hold just as true - I think that's the whole crux of the sh!tstorm...

virmilitaris

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why would I be quoting you other than to respond...to you and the points you make?

You're been silly now. I was referring to the hysterical feminists who have weighed in on this when I made that statement, I don't include you among them.

Make me understand? Are you having a laugh? I see my gender generalised all the time ....

Yes you do and so do I and black people see themselves generalised, and Asians and homosexuals and etc etc.

You were annoyed when I made that statement about "most women" but you refuse to acknowledge that Watson made a misandrist comment. I was simply trying to make you see that it was.

Would the acceptable retort not be just to dismiss your concerns and suggest you grow a thicker skin before pointing to other bigger worldly ills, anyway?

And we have a winner!

Of course it bloody well would be! That's my point! Watson made a mountain out of a molehill and lost the plot when Dawkins dismissed it. She should grow a thicker skin.

That's as may be, what makes it extra special in this instance is when many of the people saying there are more important issues to deal with are guilty of complaining about and indeed, creating an entire movement around things that many other people find hysterical over-reaction and irrelevant in the greater scheme of things...

No it is not the same at all. Watson's version of feminism is trying to place a wedge between genders, that women should be treated differently to men in situation X because of Y and Z. It's creating an inequality, not destroying one.

I work in technology R&D where women are quite underrepresented at the moment but the women that I have had the pleasure of working with are incredible. When we sit down together trying to work out a problem there are no men and women, there are only engineers trying to solve a problem. We don't treat each other differently because of our plumbing.
I feel comfortable around them, I'm able to be myself.

If I met someone like RW I couldn't be like that because I'd be worried about doing or saying something which could be taken as offensive or worse.

You are also arguing that I should acknowledge watson's motives in writing a particular way because it infers a link while deliberately choosing language which you must know does exactly the same thing...

ickle, I made that comment using those words in that way to mimic Watson to prove a point to you. I don't actually think that.

Again, I wouldn't have an issue with it - by their very nature blogs are designed to be thrown out to the wider world and if some women are interested in those blogs or even pick up some useful tips, then more power to them.

I wonder what would happen if Richard Dawkins posted a sexist comment against women akin to the ones we just discussed against men on his blog. Do you think you, or the wider community wouldn't have an issue with it ?

And you could easily reverse those sentiments and it would hold just as true - I think that's the whole crux of the sh!tstorm...

No you couldn't because men don't usually care about such things. I don't care except for the double standards being employed here.

You yourself have called men in this argument misogynist but refused to call any of the women misandrist. It's quite a simple point. Sexism is accused of men easily while the opposite is hardly even considered.

Ickle Magoo

virmilitaris wrote: »

You're been silly now. I was referring to the hysterical feminists who have weighed in on this when I made that statement, I don't include you among them.

If I am to believe you then grand...

virmilitaris wrote: »

Yes you do and so do I and black people see themselves generalised, and Asians and homosexuals and etc etc.

You were annoyed when I made that statement about "most women" but you refuse to acknowledge that Watson made a misandrist comment. I was simply trying to make you see that it was.

No, I was annoyed you seemed to be employing passive-aggressive means of insulting me - if if wasn't aimed at me, then fine - I have no issue with the assertion most women aren't whatever...

virmilitaris wrote: »

And we have a winner!

Of course it bloody well would be! That's my point! Watson made a mountain out of a molehill and lost the plot when Dawkins dismissed it. She should grow a thicker skin.

Except we don't - we have a shut up and put up or be labelled ridiculous mentality about an issue that many women feel strongly about and should be a matter of course. That's what's so pitiable about this whole issue.

virmilitaris wrote: »

No it is not the same at all. Watson's version of feminism is trying to place a wedge between genders, that women should be treated differently to men in situation X because of Y and Z. It's creating an inequality, not destroying one.

I don't think it is trying to place a wedge between genders - or at least it didn't start out that way. I think it started out as a request for a bit of understanding and common sense - and it was the overblown balking at the very notion that men should have to use either when approaching a woman for the lone purpose of sexual propositioning that got the snowball rolling.

virmilitaris wrote: »

I work in technology R&D where women are quite underrepresented at the moment but the women that I have had the pleasure of working with are incredible. When we sit down together trying to work out a problem there are no men and women, there are only engineers trying to solve a problem. We don't treat each other differently because of our plumbing.
I feel comfortable around them, I'm able to be myself.

Have I suggested you should behave differently around your colleagues? JAs anyone? Can you point out to me when this jumped from lifts at 4am and one-liner invites to rooms -> to you and your interactions with your colleagues?

virmilitaris wrote: »

If I met someone like RW I couldn't be like that because I'd be worried about doing or saying something which could be taken as offensive or worse.

I think a lot of people are going to feel that way with her now - that doesn't mean her initial point or the subsequent discussions are an exercise in hysterical pointlessness, though.

virmilitaris wrote: »

...I wonder what would happen if Richard Dawkins posted a sexist comment against women akin to the ones we just discussed against men on his blog. Do you think you, or the wider community wouldn't have an issue with it ?

He did the next best thing - and they did.

virmilitaris wrote: »

No you couldn't because men don't usually care about such things. I don't care except for the double standards being employed here.

Ditto - and I've pointed them out on several occasions now.

virmilitaris wrote: »

You yourself have called men in this argument misogynist but refused to call any of the women misandrist. It's quite a simple point. Sexism is accused of men easily while the opposite is hardly even considered.

I've called the points/posters I've seen that warrant the title, misogynistic - some posting are clearly misogynists - you called them apes yourself - others have called them much worse...if you can show me posts that demonstrate a clear hatred for all men, I'll be happy to call them whatever you like.

I'm not trying to deliberately obfuscate - I don't particularly like the efforts to draw me into some arbitrary blame game for no other reason than the sake of muddying the waters - because it has nothing to do with the issue that piqued my interest.

robindch

This whole nonsense should be called "Indelicate delegate-gate".

gargleblaster

Wow, nearly 400 posts on this. Just here, on this one forum.

All this, just because she dared to say that it was a mistake to proposition a stranger, alone in an enclosed space, at 4 am, after she'd just been talking about how creepy and inconsiderate that kind of thing was.

robindch

^^^ if you make it past the first page, you'll see there's a lot more to it than just elevator guy + Ms Watson.

gargleblaster

Too many jokes for me to want to sift through this at the moment. The signal to noise ratio means I'll have to peruse this at another time. Thanks for the tip though.

Turtwig

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

*flees thread*

baalthor

virmilitaris wrote: »

Rape probably not..

Why ?

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Is there a kind of person who gets raped ?

A female person?

Rev Hellfire

baalthor wrote: »

A female person?

So only females get raped, I'm sure the're a lot of altar boys who might disagree.