Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Kila

Finally got around to blogging about this, or in more general terms, about feminism and it's place in this whole messy argument.

In short, for anyone who doesn't want to read the full thing - I don't think this is really a sexism or a feminism issue, I think it's an issue of people being overly-sensitive and tacking a convenient label on to make it ok...

gargleblaster

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

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

I rather doubt that was their implication. I suspect the statement might have been made more in mind of the fact that women are far more often the victims of forcible rape, and possibly also molestation (which would be more in line with the altar boys comment you made). Not 100% positive that female children are overwhelmingly more often the victims of molestation, as is the case with women and rape, but I wouldn't be surprised.

As for this incident, I don't see how anyone thinking that it was sexist in nature is tacking a label on it to make it ok. If anything they are identifying it as an example of male privilege in order to try to raise awareness of male privilege.

I wasn't aware of this incident until it was mentioned in tLL, but after talking with some of my atheist friends (female and male), we all agree that it was shocking how many people didn't see anything wrong with EG's actions at all, as well as how many didn't see the sexist nature of it.


on edit: A brief perusal of the posts in this thread shows they're not all that different from the ones made elsewhere in the blogosphere. It really is mostly just about RW's asking that maybe it would be a good idea to consider a woman's feelings before sexual overtures are made. All the massive logic fails here were also made on all the other blogs (that it's a freedom of speech issue, the very slight possibility that it wasn't sexual, the hyperbolic distortions of what's actually being said, etc.) so I hope anyone who was interested enough to engage in heated debate here also took a look around the net, as it seems like the point of view was rather skewed to one side in this forum (not suggesting feminist forums, just atheist blogs where it was discussed at length).

gargleblaster

axer wrote: »

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.

The basic difference you missed is that he is discussing personal interactions between one individual and the person they want to get closer to.

As for people finding creepy, impersonal, inconsiderate come-ons "exciting", or otherwise being so incredibly desperate for attention that they find such treatment something they're willing to tolerate, I'm sure there are many. Those who wish to hit on people in such a way should do their best to seek out those types of people (wouldn't expect to find all that many at an atheist conference).

strobe

gargleblaster wrote: »

As for people finding creepy, impersonal, inconsiderate come-ons "exciting", or otherwise being so incredibly desperate for attention that they find such treatment something they're willing to tolerate, I'm sure there are many. Those who wish to hit on people in such a way should do their best to seek out those types of people (wouldn't expect to find all that many at an atheist conference).

Wow... What a bitch.

gargleblaster

strobe wrote: »

Wow... What a bitch.

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

virmilitaris

gargleblaster wrote: »

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

So no women would ever just want a drunken shag and if they did they are desperate for attention ?

This was not a sexist incident. It was a desperate chat up and it was badly implemented.

What's sexist is the nonsense sprouted here and elsewhere that the man was disrespecting her, sexualising her and possibly a threat to her.

How is it disrespectful to ask another person to partake in sexual activity? Well if you are starting off with the idea that women are somehow soiled, dirty or slutty if they sleep around then sure its disrespectful. If on the other hand you start off with the idea that men and women are equal and a woman has every right to sleep around as much as any man then no its not disrespectful its simply treating human beings the same.

Sexualising her. What's wrong with this? Men and women want to have sex. I'm not a woman but I can't imagine women not sexualing men they want to sleep with. This is a stupid argument.

As for been a threat to her. That was actually the stupidest and most insulting argument of all. Sure he could have been a threat. Then again she could have been a threat to him. When I'm going to work the bus could be a threat to me.

The people who are been sexist here and who are driving a wedge between the genders here are those supporting special rights for women.

Either men and women are equal or they are not. Either we treat eachother the same or we treat people differently based on what their plumbing looks like.

Well I treat women and men as people, as equals and I think that's how most people here and in the skeptic community treat eachother.

Rev Hellfire

virmilitaris wrote: »

How is it disrespectful to ask another person to partake in sexual activity?

Wooh steady on there ted. He asked her back for a cup of coffee to continue a conversation which I'm assuming had been ongoing with the group downstairs.
Right now the juries out as if to he wanted coffee, sex or even existed.

kiffer

Even if he'd just stood silently in the lift he could have been a threat.
He should have waited for the next lift.

Monty Burnz

kiffer wrote: »

Even if he'd just stood silently in the lift he could have been a threat.
He should have waited for the next lift.

And for their own safety, women should not be allowed to drive. And so they do not run the risk of hearing swearing, they should not be allowed into football matches.

Welcome to Saudi Arabia.

robindch

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And so they do not run the risk of hearing swearing, they should not be allowed into football matches. Welcome to Saudi Arabia.

That was Iran (originally)

kiffer

... Nonsense those are limitations placed on women, and therefore sexist, whereas it would be "considerate" for a man to realise that the woman might find being alone with him in a lift at 4 am intimidating.

In fact he should take the stairs anyway, it's healthier and better for the envionment...

axer

kiffer wrote: »

... Nonsense those are limitations placed on women, and therefore sexist, whereas it would be "considerate" for a man to realise that the woman might find being alone with him in a lift at 4 am intimidating.

In fact he should take the stairs anyway, it's healthier and better for the envionment...

I suspect at best you are just being facetious since one would assume that taking the stairs would be healthier for the female too but more importantly it would reduce the chance of feeling intimidated by a male in the enclosed space of an elevator.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you've clearly never seen the sopranos. Stairs are just another weapon in the male arsenal to be used against women.

kiffer

axer wrote: »

I suspect at best you are just being facetious since one would assume that taking the stairs would be healthier for the female too but more importantly it would reduce the chance of feeling intimidated by a male in the enclosed space of an elevator.

The woman should avoid the stairs as it could cause womb-drop, and even if we ignore the danger of that, then there is the chance that she encounters a man on the stairs, as they have both been physically exerting themsleves they will be sweating and breathing heavily... and as we all know a man who is breathing heavily is even more intimidating... and what man can restrain himself in the company of a sweaty lady.

No, The stairs are more intimidating than the lift.
Yes, I'm being silly now.

In seriousness though, I get that it's a tricky subject, men have to balance respect with actually taking the approach role 90% of the time (and getting turned away most of the time), and women have to deal with a lot of crappy approaches over time... Also men don't think "this situation may be intimidating for her" because well who would think of "me" as a potential rapist? After all I'm being polite and not being pushy?

liamw

gargleblaster wrote: »

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

Ironically, you are the one being sexist by proposing that a woman is disrespecting herself by accepting such a proposition (whereas a man isn't)...

Ickle Magoo

Kila wrote: »

...In short, for anyone who doesn't want to read the full thing - I don't think this is really a sexism or a feminism issue, I think it's an issue of people being overly-sensitive and tacking a convenient label on to make it ok...

You can’t simultaneously demand equality, and then also demand different treatment because you are a woman.

So shutting up and puting up with a behaviour that is primarily displayed by one gender and is widely unpopular with the other that has to field it is an exercise in equality?

...who knew?

Here's me thinking if atheists can say "guys, we shouldn't have priests on school boards" or "guys, if you want to send you child to a school that is aimed at one religion you should be willing to pay the fees" then RW should be able to say "guys, don't do that" - and THAT would be equality - apparently not.

Whenever the "you can't demand equality...." line is trotted out I have to laugh. Our selfish genes have thus dictated that there isn't ever going to be universal equality across the board - we also have to rely on being governed by common sense, societal norms and even legislation. It is complaint, discussion and debate that form the basis for the ever-evolving "accepted" views on those issues and precious little that would have been the norm in times gone by that are now considered unacceptable would have changed without it - and despite all of which you still have to acknowledge you are indeed a woman in a man's world.

Rather than accusing anyone of latterly tacking on a label, which I think is more than a little disingenuous; the issue was caused when a woman who professes to be a feminist was asked to a skeptic conference to talk in that capacity and deliberately discussed sexism in the atheist community, positions of privilege, her personal dislike of being made to feel creeped out and objectified by those in the movement contacting her not about skepticism but in sexual terms...and then something that highlights all the issues she stated actually happened.

The disparity in terms of gender "equality" was further highlighted when Dawkins belittled the complaint of a woman in the west in lieu of the world having bigger fish to fry while making a tidy living off the little fish he thinks we should be concentrating on without so much as a peep about AIDS in Africa or genocide or war-zones...and the inability by many to see the hypocrisy of having such a stance given the standard atheists' bread and butter arguments/rebuttals.

strobe wrote:

Wow... What a bitch.

While I wouldn't have worded it that way - I have been witness to some women furiously trying to convince themselves and dismiss the skepticism of others that they have been paid a huge compliment when some guy they've never met before makes what is clearly a desperate eleventh hour attempt to get a leg-over or face resorting to manual.

gargleblaster

I

virmilitaris wrote: »

So no women would ever just want a drunken shag and if they did they are desperate for attention ?

This was not a sexist incident. It was a desperate chat up and it was badly implemented.

What's sexist is the nonsense sprouted here and elsewhere that the man was disrespecting her, sexualising her and possibly a threat to her.

How is it disrespectful to ask another person to partake in sexual activity? Well if you are starting off with the idea that women are somehow soiled, dirty or slutty if they sleep around then sure its disrespectful. If on the other hand you start off with the idea that men and women are equal and a woman has every right to sleep around as much as any man then no its not disrespectful its simply treating human beings the same.

Sexualising her. What's wrong with this? Men and women want to have sex. I'm not a woman but I can't imagine women not sexualing men they want to sleep with. This is a stupid argument.

As for been a threat to her. That was actually the stupidest and most insulting argument of all. Sure he could have been a threat. Then again she could have been a threat to him. When I'm going to work the bus could be a threat to me.

The people who are been sexist here and who are driving a wedge between the genders here are those supporting special rights for women.

Either men and women are equal or they are not. Either we treat eachother the same or we treat people differently based on what their plumbing looks like.

Well I treat women and men as people, as equals and I think that's how most people here and in the skeptic community treat eachother.

No. You are making up all kinds of reasons why it was ok.

She wasn't at a pick up joint - a dance club, nor was she hanging out looking to meet someone. She was hanging out with a crowd.

Even if he didnt hear her say that she was tired and going to bed, simply the fact that he would proposition a stranger at 4 am is just rude. Straight up.

What is baffling is that so very many men and some women too are tying themselves in convoluted knots of pretzel logic in order to try to excuse this major social gaffe.

gargleblaster

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Wooh steady on there ted. He asked her back for a cup of coffee to continue a conversation which I'm assuming had been ongoing with the group downstairs.
Right now the juries out as if to he wanted coffee, sex or even existed.

I seriously cannot believe anyone is still trying to sell this one.

I., and many other atheists, expected so much more from supposed critical thinkers.

gargleblaster

Wow, and then we're treated to another round of burka related logic fails. This is really, really disappointing.

robindch

gargleblaster wrote: »

I seriously cannot believe anyone is still trying to sell this one. I, and many other atheists, expected so much more from supposed critical thinkers.

Given that RW claims that elevator-guy said "Don't take this the wrong way", I'm inclined at least to grant the possibility that he may not have been after a quick hump.

Was the bar still serving downstairs? Had he been speaking with her earlier in the evening and mistakenly thought she was giving him a come-on? Was he a random stranger who hadn't heard a word of anything? Had he noticed that she calls herself 'skepchick' and taken that name further than it should have been? Was he a sozzled or mildly sozzled geek with zero social skills and just terribly innocent? How come he's not come forward and given his side of the story, even anonymously? Did nobody else see him heading off after her into the elevator? Does elevator-guy really exist?

There are alternative explanations for events as they're generally understood to have taken place.

axer

gargleblaster wrote: »

I., and many other atheists, expected so much more from supposed critical thinkers.

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

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

virmilitaris

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So shutting up and puting up with a behaviour that is primarily displayed by one gender and is widely unpopular with the other that has to field it is an exercise in equality?

Because nothing that many women do is unpopular with men ? :rolleyes:

How about this for starters ? Women expecting that the man pay for everything on a date.

You are not being told to shut up or put up. A man started talking to a woman in an elevator and politely asked her if she was up for coffee in his hotel room (sex if you want). She said no and that was the end of it.

What is wrong with one adult politely requesting another to have consensual sexual relations ?

Here's me thinking if atheists can say "guys, we shouldn't have priests on school boards" or "guys, if you want to send you child to a school that is aimed at one religion you should be willing to pay the fees" then RW should be able to say "guys, don't do that" - and THAT would be equality - apparently not.

Because they are not in any way the same thing.

The first two are seeking equality. The last one is seeking special privileges for women because they have different plumbing to the other half of the human race.

This is not seeking equality, it is doing the exact opposite.

I cannot for the life of me understand how you can't see that every Muslim that 'protects' their women comes out with the exact same rubbish you are now saying yourself.

I have being in arguments where a not too dissimilar situation was put forward to RW in the elevator and RW and her supporters could be echoing the words of these Muslims who think their women need to be protected from such incidents by wearing a small tent around their body and been escorted by their brother.

virmilitaris

gargleblaster wrote: »

She wasn't at a pick up joint - a dance club, nor was she hanging out looking to meet someone. She was hanging out with a crowd.

So we are only allowed to proposition women at designated locations now ?

We also have to read their minds first to find out if they are interested in meeting someone because the horror of actually asking them is too much for them to handle ?

And women cannot be with a crowd, they must be alone ?

Fantastic.

simply the fact that he would proposition a stranger at 4 am is just rude. Straight up.

Funny. My wife didn't consider it rude when I propositioned her at 2am. Is there something special about 4am ? What about 3am or 3:30am, is it ok then ?

I also do believe I've propositioned women at various hours between 2am and 6am and have gotten pretty good results if I don't say so myself.

So all these women that were happy to accept my propositions, and are happy to accept other mens/lesbians propositions in the early hours are what exactly ?

I have several female friends who go out at the weekend with every intention of finding a nice guy to bring home or if that fails a quick roll in the hay. Are they not women ?

Kila

virmilitaris wrote: »

Because nothing that many women do is unpopular with men ? :rolleyes:

How about this for starters ? Women expecting that the man pay for everything on a date.

You are not being told to shut up or put up. A man started talking to a woman in an elevator and politely asked her if she was up for coffee in his hotel room (sex if you want). She said no and that was the end of it.

What is wrong with one adult politely requesting another to have consensual sexual relations ?



Because they are not in any way the same thing.

The first two are seeking equality. The last one is seeking special privileges for women because they have different plumbing to the other half of the human race.

This is not seeking equality, it is doing the exact opposite.

I cannot for the life of me understand how you can't see that every Muslim that 'protects' their women comes out with the exact same rubbish you are now saying yourself.

I have being in arguments where a not too dissimilar situation was put forward to RW in the elevator and RW and her supporters could be echoing the words of these Muslims who think their women need to be protected from such incidents by wearing a small tent around their body and been escorted by their brother.

Thanks - this reply is pretty much what I would have written myself, so I won't simply write the same thing. I'm all for equality, not for super-equality or superiority, which is what many people seem to think that equality really is.

There was no great feminist issue raised by someone asking RW if she wanted to have a coffee, and then accepting her answer without complaint. RW can say "guys you shouldn't do that" if, for example, it's immediately followed by " to me because I don't like it". For her to declare that any man who might proposition a women as some sort of misogynist creep, however, is a bit different, and more than a little extreme. The use of feminism in this context is just adding gravitas to an incident that doesn't really have any.

Ickle Magoo

virmilitaris wrote: »

Because nothing that many women do is unpopular with men ? :rolleyes:

How about this for starters ? Women expecting that the man to pay for everything on a date. [/quote]

Some women do - and just as every other time you've trotted out a similar straw-man - I've have no issue with anyone saying "ladies, don't do that" and nor am I shrieking hysterically that because I don't expect a man to pay nobody should say "ladies, don't do that"...spot the difference?

virmilitaris wrote: »

You are not being told to shut up or put up. A man started talking to a woman in an elevator and politely asked her if she was up for coffee in his hotel room (sex if you want). She said no and that was the end of it.

What is wrong with one adult politely requesting another to have consensual sexual relations ?

Nothing is wrong with politely requesting another have sexual relations; however, if you follow a woman out of a group and into an enclosed area in the early hours of the morning for the express purposes of throwing a one-liner then you are likely to be labelled a socially retarded creep. If people want to avoid that, they may want to pay heed to what RW has suggested.

virmilitaris wrote: »

Because they are not in any way the same thing.

The first two are seeking equality. The last one is seeking special privileges for women because they have different plumbing to the other half of the human race.

This is not seeking equality, it is doing the exact opposite.

Special privilege? So when trying to attract members to a particular cause, a number of them requesting some social skills be brushed up on is now a privilege? Wow....that should have them joining the movement in their droves.

virmilitaris wrote: »

I cannot for the life of me understand how you can't see that every Muslim that 'protects' their women comes out with the exact same rubbish you are now saying yourself.

I have being in arguments where a not too dissimilar situation was put forward to RW in the elevator and RW and her supporters could be echoing the words of these Muslims who think their women need to be protected from such incidents by wearing a small tent around their body and been escorted by their brother.

You can keep banging that "no different to muslim men thinking women should wear burkqa & be escorted everywhere" drum, I'll stick to knowing it's about a lot of women asking men to show some consideration and brush up on their social skills.

virmilitaris

Kila wrote: »

There was no great feminist issue raised by someone asking RW if she wanted to have a coffee, and then accepting her answer without complaint. RW can say "guys you shouldn't do that" if, for example, it's immediately followed by " to me because I don't like it".

Doh I knew I forgot something. Thank you.

Of course RW can say what she wants and I have no problem with her requesting guys 'not to do that' to her. She has every right to do so. What she doesn't have a right to do is to speak for 50% of the human race.

For her to declare that any man who might proposition a women as some sort of misogynist creep, however, is a bit different, and more than a little extreme. The use of feminism in this context is just adding gravitas to an incident that doesn't really have any.

+1

virmilitaris

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Some women do - and just as every other time you've trotted out a similar straw-man - I've have no issue with anyone saying "ladies, don't do that" and nor am I shrieking hysterically that because I don't expect a man to pay nobody should say "ladies, don't do that"...spot the difference?

And for the second time in this thread I have to explain that I didn't say you would have an issue with it. I have an issue with it.

No one has the right to tell others what to do in these circumstances.

Nothing is wrong with politely requesting another have sexual relations;

Except in situations that you are going to define for us.

however, if you follow a woman out of a group and into an enclosed area in the early hours of the morning for the express purposes of throwing a one-liner then you are likely to be labelled a socially retarded creep.

Yes. So ?

I am not defending the guy in the elevator. I have agreed a dozen times with you that I understand how RW could take such an action that way.

If people want to avoid that, they may want to pay heed to what RW has suggested.

No. They may want to use their own minds and experiences in avoiding it.

Special privilege? So when trying to attract members to a particular cause, a number of them requesting some social skills be brushed up on is now a privilege?

Nonsense. You are not requesting social skills be brushed up on, you are telling 50% of the human race to act a certain way when they deal with the other 50% of the human race or they are been rude and sexist.

How does this work with homosexuals might I ask ? Do the same rules apply ?

Wow....that should have them joining the movement in their droves.

Any group, men, women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals or anyone else who wants equality are fine with me.
Groups who want privilege over others are not.

gargleblaster

gargleblaster wrote: »

Even if he didnt hear her say that she was tired and going to bed, simply the fact that he would proposition a stranger at 4 am is just rude. Straight up.

I don't really think so

gargleblaster

liamw wrote: »

Ironically, you are the one being sexist by proposing that a woman is disrespecting herself by accepting such a proposition (whereas a man isn't)...

Do you honestly think that in situations like this (I will not repeat the context, despite the obvious fact that many seem to want to pretend it doesn't matter - I will assume you are intelligent enough to take context into account), that you can just reverse the roles. Men and women grow up with a different set of experiences, and their expectations are different.

A man faced with such a situation might feel he's hit the porn scenario jackpot. He also may feel he's about to get rolled for his wallet. Regardless, attempting to simply reverse the roles in this context is not logical.

gargleblaster

robindch wrote: »

Given that RW claims that elevator-guy said "Don't take this the wrong way", I'm inclined at least to grant the possibility that he may not have been after a quick hump.

Was the bar still serving downstairs? Had he been speaking with her earlier in the evening and mistakenly thought she was giving him a come-on? Was he a random stranger who hadn't heard a word of anything? Had he noticed that she calls herself 'skepchick' and taken that name further than it should have been? Was he a sozzled or mildly sozzled geek with zero social skills and just terribly innocent? How come he's not come forward and given his side of the story, even anonymously? Did nobody else see him heading off after her into the elevator? Does elevator-guy really exist?

There are alternative explanations for events as they're generally understood to have taken place.

If you're going to take as a point of argument that none of it happened then there's no reason to engage in any discussion about it whatsoever. So the attempts to claim she's just made it all up as part of some strategy of a larger argument are really beyond explanation. If you really think she's lying then just say that and excuse yourself from the discussion.

As for all the possible excuses for why he'd ask a stranger back to his room alone at 4 am for coffee, there are many. They are all excuses.

Why the insistence to try to excuse the behavior? Why not a simple admission that it was rude? Is it really so hard to simply acknowledge something so obivous? He gave no thought at all to her feelings. He put her feelings ahead of hers. What kind of behavior is that? In the context of a man approaching a woman at 4 am for "coffee" it is privileged behavior. He treated her not like a person, but like an object.