Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Rev Hellfire

MagicMarker wrote: »

How do you know he heard any of this?

How could he not have ! Clearly she was the most important person in the hotel and everyone there would have being intently hanging on her every word.

This all smacks of an ego wanting more me time and stirring a pot to ensure they get it.

Count Duckula

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

How could he not have ! Clearly she was the most important person in the hotel and everyone their would have being intently hanging on her every word.

This all smacks of an ego wanting more me time and stirring a pot to ensure they get it.

In fairness, the pot only got stirred when people like Myers waded in. Watson merely made a point (one I disagree with, sure), but seemed to be seeking no more attention than any other "celebrity atheist".

Bottle_of_Smoke

Who is this person? Is she an author or something?

Anyway seems like a horrible cry for attention. She's open that it wasn't a sleazy approach. f*cking hell he could have been just been enjoying the conversation and was seeing if she wanted to hang out.

The amount of strawman attacks on Dawkins in the thread was hilarious. This forum is a much better place.

Dawkins first response was a bit irrelevant but reckon he was just astounded that she thought it worth commenting over such a non-event

Dave!

fatmammycat wrote: »

makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.

Is "sexualize" another word for "make sexual approaches towards"?

Because eh that's kinda how sexual encounters are supposed to work.

One person makes an approach, if the other person consents then they do the pants-off dance. If they don't consent, then the encounter ends there (unless there is a rapist involved). It's pretty standard stuff.

As far as I can tell, the dude took the rejection on the chin and then went to his own room for a tug.

RW might have a point if the guy was persistent and kept at her in some way, but he simply made the advance, was shot down, and left it at that.

That's how the world is supposed to work.

Dave!

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Who is this person? Is she an author or something?

Anyway seems like a horrible cry for attention. She's open that it wasn't a sleazy approach. f*cking hell he could have been just been enjoying the conversation and was seeing if she wanted to hang out.

The amount of strawman attacks on Dawkins in the thread was hilarious. This forum is a much better place.

Dawkins first response was a bit irrelevant but reckon he was just astounded that she thought it worth commenting over such a non-event

She's a blogger on Skepchick, and she's a panelist on the Skeptics Guide podcast (in my sig).

axer

This is madness.

Did SkepChick think of Elevator guy's uncomfortableness when she implied that he was some sort of sexual predator who made her feel uncomfortable when she posted a public video about the incounter? He did nothing wrong but asked her if she wanted to converse over coffee.

She was prejudging him in what I would considering ironically a sexist way i.e. man asks woman does she want to come to his room for coffee and a chat because he thinks she is an interesting person which she prejudges as man wants to have sex with her or possibly rape her. What a complete overreaction! I would think she has a point if he was aggressive verbally or physically in any way but there is no mention of that at all.

Dawkins was correct in what he said in that this is not a case of him comparing bad with much worse suggesting that the bad doesnt matter - he is saying that what she experienced doesn't even make it onto the scale of badness in the first place.

Madness! She owes the elevator guy and Dawkins an apology for her childish behaviour!

Ickle Magoo

She stated she was tired and going to her room.

She feels it was completely inappropriate to follow her into a lift and then at 4am in morning suggest she goes to his room for a "coffee" - I can see where she's coming from tbh...approaching someone in a hotel, that you don't know at 4am to invite them to your room because you've had a few jars and are a bit horny is a bit desperate and creepy - she would hardly be alone in not appreciating that particular gem of an approach.

Count Duckula

The problem comes as to where to draw the line.

Do you blame elevator guy for making a proposition in an elevator (where she could not get away) when there was no one else around, thus making her uncomfortable? If he'd stopped to think for a moment - especially given the nature of the speech she had just given - he might have realised that it would make her at the very least uncomfortable, and may even have scared her. Is it therefore his fault for being such an "insensitive cad"?

Or is RW at "fault" for being uncomfortable in the first place? She had nothing to feel uncomfortable about, as it turns out. He was a normal man, who asked a question, was rejected and then went on his merry way. Any threat, terror, discomfort or intimidation was entirely in her own mind. Is it therefore her fault for feeling such discomfort and expecting others to alter behaviour to compensate for that?

Count Duckula

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

approaching someone in a hotel, that you don't know at 4am to invite them to your room because you've had a few jars and are a bit horny is a bit desperate and creepy

But why is it creepy? Desperate, sure, I agree with you. A last roll of the dice, I guess, for a horny man with a skin-full. But creepy? Is the fact that it's construed as "creepy" not a direct indication that a man showing sexual interest is something to be feared?

axer

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

She stated she was tired and going to her room.

She feels it was completely inappropriate to follow her into a lift and then at 4am in morning suggest she goes to his room for a "coffee" - I can see where she's coming from tbh...approaching someone in a hotel, that you don't know at 4am to invite them to your room because you've had a few jars and are a bit horny is a bit desperate and creepy.

But we dont know this is the case - this is all pre-judging the man just because he is male then he must have:
1. Been drinking thus was somewhat tipsy
2. Been horny
3. Was desperate and creepy because he asked someone did she want to have a chat and a coffee.

What if the guy was none of the above but is being made out to be the above just because he asked, really nicely I think, if she wanted to have a chat and a coffee. If he was a female would he be labeled as being the listed descriptions above? Is it not ironic that a woman making a point about feminism started all these sexist attacks against the man?

Count Duckula

To be fair, if he were female the invitation would likely have not had sexual undertones and would have been received totally differently.

Ickle Magoo

Count Duckula wrote: »

Or is RW at "fault" for being uncomfortable in the first place? She had nothing to feel uncomfortable about, as it turns out. He was a normal man, who asked a question, was rejected and then went on his merry way. Any threat, terror, discomfort or intimidation was entirely in her own mind. Is it therefore her fault for feeling such discomfort and expecting others to alter behaviour to compensate for that?

I think this is something a lot of guys just can't wrap their heads around. It's a feckin pain in the arse to be propositioned and fed lines as you just try to go about your day with absolutely no encouragement whatsoever. At work, going to your hotel room, at the gym - everywhere. It just becomes tedious and annoying - I'm sure guys think they are just innocently chancing their arm at the end of a night but after years of it just becomes eye-rollingly predictable. Especially given really obvious situation when she's said she's tired, going to her room and not given any invitation that she wants coffee in someone else's room.

Now, I'm not a blogger or author or whatever RW is - I just tell my pals about the tw@t that accosted me in the hotel stairwell slurring and holding a tent in his pants trying to talk me into a "coffee" in his room, or the guy in the lift that kept trying to catch my eye as I was on my way back to my suite. It gets to the stage where you feel like wearing a sign saying "You know what? If I'm interested, you'll be the first to know - otherwise take it as read that I'm not"...so on that point, I can understand her initial reaction.

Ickle Magoo

axer wrote: »

But we dont know this is the case - this is all pre-judging the man just because he is male then he must have:
1. Been drinking thus was somewhat tipsy
2. Been horny
3. Was desperate and creepy because he asked someone did she want to have a chat and a coffee.

What if the guy was none of the above but is being made out to be the above just because he asked, really nicely I think, if she wanted to have a chat and a coffee. If he was a female would he be labeled as being the listed descriptions above? Is it not ironic that a woman making a point about feminism started all these sexist attacks against the man?

I was just responding to the claims made here that it was just a poor guy after a few drinks chancing his arm. Not really - feminist or no I think most women get fed up with continually dealing inappropriate and uninvited attentions.

axer

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think this is something a lot of guys just can't wrap their heads around. It's a feckin pain in the arse to be propositioned and fed lines as you just try to go about your day with absolutely no encouragement whatsoever. At work, going to your hotel room, at the gym - everywhere. It just becomes tedious and annoying - I'm sure guys think they are just innocently chancing their arm at the end of a night but after years of it just becomes eye-rollingly predictable. Especially given really obvious situation when she's said she's tired, going to her room and not given any invitation that she wants coffee in someone else's room.

Ok, so males should not talk to females that do not know them and suggest going for a coffee and a chat because that means they must be trying to get into your pants.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Now, I'm not a blogger or author or whatever RW is - I just tell my pals about the tw@t that accosted me in the hotel stairwell slurring and holding a tent in his pants trying to talk me into a "coffee" in his room, or the guy in the lift that kept trying to catch my eye as I was on my way back to my suite. It gets to the stage where you feel like wearing a sign saying "You know what? If I'm interested, you'll be the first to know - otherwise take it as read that I'm not"...so on that point, I can understand her initial reaction.

and this is my problem with the sexist interpretation of the encounter.

So he is male so:
1. he must be a twat
2. it was an accostation i.e. forceful
3. he must have been drunk to make have violate the rule that he must first seek permission before talking to a woman who doesn't know him
4. he must have had an erection i.e. a bit of a perve
5. he must have really meant sex instead of coffee

Just wow.

Ickle Magoo

axer wrote: »

Ok, so males should not talk to females that do not know them and suggest going for a coffee and a chat because that means

Well, it would be nice if they had the cop on not to of their own volition. Or alternatively accept the person they are propositioning at 4am, uninvited, with no encouragement when the other party has stated they are tired and going to their room may consider it an annoyance.

axer wrote: »

and this is my problem with the sexist interpretation of the encounter.

So he is male so:
1. he must be a twat
2. it was an accostation i.e. forceful
3. he must have been drunk to make have violate the rule that he must first seek permission before talking to a woman who doesn't know him
4. he must have had an erection i.e. a bit of a perve
5. he must have really meant sex instead of coffee

Just wow.

Yay to defending a guy you don't know in a situation you didn't witness - is that any odder or OTT compared to anything RW has done?

By the by, I can assure you he was all of those things - he saw me coming, wouldn't let me past him, it was not coffee on his mind and unless he had very odd trousers on he was, actually, pitching a tent. I don't have any footage so you'll just have to take my word for it...or infer again that I'm lying. :rolleyes:

tawnyowl

Count Duckula wrote: »

But why is it creepy? Desperate, sure, I agree with you. A last roll of the dice, I guess, for a horny man with a skin-full. But creepy? Is the fact that it's construed as "creepy" not a direct indication that a man showing sexual interest is something to be feared?

Context is very important - it was at 4am (few people up at that time) in an enclosed space.

Put it this way - if someone approaches someone in an isolated place, it can be unnerving. If that someone makes that kind of approach, ignoring that they've made someone uncomfortable, then someone who is safety-conscious will wonder what else they'll ignore.

Women are generally more safety-conscious than men, in part because the average man is stronger than the average woman.

Rev Hellfire

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

By the by, I can assure you he was all of those things - he saw me coming, wouldn't let me past him, it was not coffee on his mind and unless he had very odd trousers on he was, actually, pitching a tent. I don't have any footage so you'll just have to take my word for it...or infer again that I'm lying. :rolleyes:

Yes that makes sense, because that guy is all guys :rolleyes:

robindch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think most women get fed up with continually dealing inappropriate and uninvited attentions.

Well, how often does it happen? RW mentioned it was happening down the bar every 45 minutes or so. And fair enough, that's a pain in the ass and she's right to complain about it. It's the subsequent character assassination of Dawkins which seems out of order to me.

But for lads, well, out in the far east, for example, it happens regularly -- nice-looking girls catching one's eye, flashing smiles, occasionally brushing up against one, sometimes even going so far as to grab an arm, late at night in a hotel lift. And don't get me started about masseurs offering massages with happy endings.

All of these things I can well do without and it does take time to get used to. But a short gracious reply usually does the trick and I don't see it as "sexual objectification" any more than feel I've received a dose of "eater objectification" while being served in a restaurant. Maybe some girls out there do view guys as objects, but a lot I know don't.

Ickle Magoo

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Yes that makes sense, because that guy is all guys :rolleyes:

Point out where I said it was all guys?

The point I did make is it's not a once off, hell it's not even unusual - so to the sentiment "guys, don't do that" - I see where she's coming from, absolutely.

seamus

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's a feckin pain in the arse to be propositioned and fed lines as you just try to go about your day with absolutely no encouragement whatsoever.

I do completely understand this. But I'm struggling to think of an alternative that avoid having women irritated, but at the same time doesn't sterilise the sexual experience by turning into "organised mating". Men chasing women is the sexual dance we've been at for millions of years. Trying to insert abstract modern notions of mutual respect or feminism is going to be difficult because sexuality doesn't care about such things. Sexuality wants to get laid.

Ideally women would be approached when they want to be approached - or women would more often take the initiative and approach men - but unless you're going to wear an "Approach me/Don't approach me" sign on your head (though it's debateable whether that would be heeded), then I fear that dealing with unwanted attention is a fact of life that women will have to continue to deal with.

There is of course a flipside to the "don't approach me" problem. If men don't approach women because they've been told it's potentially disrespectful, then unless women take the initiative to approach men then it's not going to work.
I've heard both sides of the coin out of the same womens' mouths: Complaining when men do come up and talk to them, but equally complaining that certain individual men don't come up and talk to them.

There is of course the eternal issue that an attractive man who flirts with women is a charmer or a ladies' man. An ugly guy who does the same thing is a creep.

I think the best we can hope for is a little respect on both sides - the guy doesn't act pushy or sleazy about come-ons and the girl is honest and respectful in responding and saying, "No, thank you". It's unfortunate that a guy who appears to have been acting entirely within the realm of respect has sparked a debate on the actions of a subset of idiots who hit on everything that moves.

tawnyowl

Dave! wrote: »

Is "sexualize" another word for "make sexual approaches towards"?

Because eh that's kinda how sexual encounters are supposed to work.

Didn't she say she was tired before she left the bar?

Ickle Magoo

robindch wrote: »

Well, how often does it happen? RW mentioned it was happening down the bar every 45 minutes or so. And fair enough, that's a pain in the ass and she's right to complain about it. It's the subsequent character assassination of Dawkins which seems out of order to me.

But for lads, well, out in the far east, for example, it happens regularly -- nice-looking girls catching one's eye, flashing smiles, occasionally brushing up against one, sometimes even going so far as to grab an arm, late at night in a hotel lift. And don't get me started about masseurs offering massages with happy endings.

All of these things I can well do without and it does take time to get used to. But a short gracious reply usually does the trick and I don't see it as "sexual objectification" any more than feel I've received a dose of "eater objectification" while being served in a restaurant. Maybe some girls out there do view guys as objects, but a lot I know don't.

How often? Well, that depends on location and ratio tbh. Sometimes it can be ridiculously often and horribly inappropriate.

I don't agree with the whole "sexual objectification" stuff because I think both sexes objectify all the time - the issue I agree with is having to deal with inappropriate time and manner of that objectification being conveyed. I'm struggling to think of a girls night out where one or all of us at some stage were not "accosted" and by accosted mean forcefully trying to get away or being abused for daring to want to get away from some guy trying it on. Multiply that and situations like it over the span of most women's adult life and it becomes a tedious and predictable chore.

Now, guys may only chance their arm with a couple of girls in a couple of situations on a night out but girls are fielding such advances ALL NIGHT from all angles. On the dancefloor, at the bar, chatting, fair enough...at 4 am, in a lift, after you've said goodnight to professional peers or colleagues - a plead to be let alone unless invited? I totally get where she's coming from.

amacachi

seamus wrote: »

There is of course the eternal issue that an attractive man who flirts with women is a charmer or a ladies' man. An ugly guy who does the same thing is a creep.

Does asking someone what time it is count as trying to flirt? If so it would explain a slap I got that I'm still trying to figure out. :pac:

Rev Hellfire

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Point out where I said it was all guys?

You implied with when you said

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The point I did make is it's not a once off, hell it's not even unusual - so to the sentiment "guys, don't do that" - I see where she's coming from, absolutely.

But as we've all come to realize at this stage the only sexists are male sexists.

axer

seamus wrote: »

I think the best we can hope for is a little respect on both sides - the guy doesn't act pushy or sleazy about come-ons and the girl is honest and respectful in responding and saying, "No, thank you". It's unfortunate that a guy who appears to have been acting entirely within the realm of respect has sparked a debate on the actions of a subset of idiots who hit on everything that moves.

This is exactly the essence of my problem with SkepChick's sexist remarks and why Dawkins was correct in his point that what she experienced was not in anyways bad other than her own perception of it being bad.

This guy did nothing wrong in fact from what SkepChick has said he was perfectly polite and was in no way persistent but yet she felt the need to somehow imply he was in the same group as sexual predator by feeling the need to point out to all guys that this was wrong or unacceptable behaviour.

amacachi

axer wrote: »

This guy did nothing wrong in fact from what SkepChick has said he was perfectly polite and was in no way persistent but yet she felt the need to somehow imply he was in the same group as sexual predator by feeling the need to point out to all guys that this was wrong or unacceptable behaviour.

The fact that later she says that any propositioning shows that the propositoner sees the propositionee as a "lower-status person" shows where her attitude is coming from and closes this particular case for me.

Beruthiel

Count Duckula wrote: »

But why is it creepy? Desperate, sure, I agree with you. A last roll of the dice, I guess, for a horny man with a skin-full. But creepy? Is the fact that it's construed as "creepy" not a direct indication that a man showing sexual interest is something to be feared?

Normally no, but, if it's four in the morning, the guy is a stranger, drunk and you are stuck in a lift with no escape, that's a whole other ball game.
I believe I would be totally freaked out under such circumstances and for no other reason than I cannot get away if he were to attempt anything. It would be totally outside my comfort zone.

Count Duckula

I'm genuinely interested, and I'm not looking to troll, when I say at what point is it acceptable then for a man to hit on a woman?

I understand it can get highly annoying for a woman to be constantly hit on by streams of men who want nothing more then a quick shag. Not only the annoyance of it, but there probably is something a bit degrading in the fact that they're hitting on you not because they like you, but because they're horny and you are a woman.

I fully get that.

I also understand that there must always be a bit of a worry as to the man's motives, especially when those advances are made when you are alone with him and the surroundings lend themselves well to a rapist's modus operandi.

However, taken to its logical extreme, this would result in men not ever making advances on women and relying totally on the women showing interest in the men. Obviously, nobody wants this as it is totally unworkable. But in order to not make a woman feel uncomfortable, how and when would it be acceptable for a man approach her?

I honestly believe the vast majority of men hit on women and put them in uncomfortable situations merely because they do not understand the consequences of their actions, and cannot empathise with the woman's position in the exchange - they know that they mean no harm, so why is she acting so strangely and freaked out?

Ickle Magoo

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

You implied with when you said

If you aren't doing it already and have no intention of doing so, then why would you assume such a plea is aimed at you?

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But as we've all come to realize at this stage the only sexists are male sexists.

Yeah, that's just what's being said. Bravo.

.<- point







-> you

Rev Hellfire

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If you aren't doing it already and have no intention of doing so, then why would you assume such a plea is aimed at you?

Perhaps as a male I'm fed up as being looked at as a potential rapist all the time and someone to be feared as an animal barely in control of their urges.

I'm not sure where I get these crazy ideas from.

Ickle Magoo

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Perhaps as a male I'm fed up as being looked at as a potential rapist all the time and someone to be feared as an animal barely in control of their urges.

I'm not sure where I get these crazy ideas from.

Who's looking at you like a potential rapist? I said it was annoying - does annoying = rape now? :rolleyes:

axer

Beruthiel wrote: »

Normally no, but, if it's four in the morning, the guy is a stranger, drunk and you are stuck in a lift with no escape, that's a whole other ball game.
I believe I would be totally freaked out under such circumstances and for no other reason than I cannot get away if he were to attempt anything. It would be totally outside my comfort zone.

Except in this situation there is no mention that the guy was drunk - that was a sexist implication by Ickle Magoo from what I can see.

The fact here is SkepChick felt the need to tell all guys that they should not act like sexual predators/misogynists like this guy even though he was completely polite with no mention of persistence or aggressiveness. Very sexist in my opinion.

<Tells story> "Girls, don't do that. Don't be so sensitive and emotional."
Oops was I being sexist!?

axer

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Who's looking at you like a potential rapist? I said it was annoying - does annoying = rape now? :rolleyes:

Read the comments below SkepChicks blog post and you will see how many imply that. I find it very sexist and annoying but more ironic really.

Ickle Magoo

axer wrote: »

that was a sexist implication by Ickle Magoo from what I can see.

Who was responding to this post...Here and my own experience of being asked for "coffee" in hotels...nowhere did I claim the man who propositioned RW was anything, other than agreeing I would have considered it annoying and inappropriate - his or her sobriety is yet another red herring.

Ickle Magoo

axer wrote: »

Read the comments below SkepChicks blog post and you will see how many imply that. I find it very sexist and annoying but more ironic really.

Well, perhaps following a women at 4am to proposition in a lift when you could have done same in the hotel lobby was not a particularly wise move. Thanks to volume of men who's unwelcome and uninvited behaviour has made me feel threatened and intimidated, it's not something I would have appreciated either. Perhaps your ire should be directed at those men who's behaviour has resulted in women having to be so safety concious?

Hobbes

From the full description of the incident the guy came across as shy. I mean he says "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee? "

Clearly he is either (a) not asking for a vertical boogy, or (b) he is shy.

King Mob

Rebecca Watson never said she thought the guy was a rapist or that he definitely thought that he was going to try something, just that a proposition in that circumstance was uncomfortable and made the point that men didn't really get how uncomfortable something like that can be.

But then there's people saying "she's overly sensitive" or she thinks that everyone is out to rape her, and this is the kinda stuff that is the problem.

mikhail

tawnyowl wrote: »

The circumstances were also a factor:

• She said she was tired and wanted to go to her room.
• He said he wanted to have coffee with her. (Despite her saying she was tired.)
• It happened in a lift - quite enclosed.
• At 4am in the morning - not many people around then and CCTV might not be checked until morning.
• I think it was mentioned in one of the online discussions that she'd mentioned a problem with being hit on in email.
• I think there was also mention that he was with the group in the bar, but didn't talk to her then.

It's possible, though not likely, that he meant literally what he said. It's possible that he was propositioning her in a way he thought was non-threatening. It's possible that there was some other possibility.

Rebecca erred on the side of caution.

Erring on the side of caution was declining the offer. The following is by Rebecca Watson, from here.

With all other complaints answered, my critics fell back to one complaint: I was wrong to use McGraw’s name.

Now I must share one additional fact about me: I loathe passive aggressive behavior. Loathe it. I sincerely believe that if you are going to criticize someone’s argument, you should clearly and honestly state to whom you are referring and what exactly they have said or done that you find objectionable.

For me, this is a question of respect: I have enough respect for the person I am criticizing to not make them guess that I am talking about them or guess at what they said that needs to be defended, and I have enough respect for my audience to allow them the opportunity to double check my work. If I hide the person and the exact words that I am criticizing, how does anyone know whether or not I’m creating a strawman? How can the person in question respond?

Now, she might dismiss it, but publicly shaming a guy over what he did is objectionable, and her defence of it is pathetic. I have no doubt he made her feel uncomfortable, and that makes him a bit of a dick whether he intended to or not, but the internet has a long memory: naming him in an accusation of misogyny is a big deal, and in my book that makes her by far the bigger dick.

Dades

tawnyowl wrote: »

Didn't she say she was tired before she left the bar?

Have we established that Elevator Guy was privy to all her pre-elevator remarks/preferences?

He could, afaik, just have been the wrong guy in the wrong lift with the wrong skepchick.

fatmammycat

mikhail wrote: »

Erring on the side of caution was declining the offer. The following is by Rebecca Watson, from here.

Now, she might dismiss it, but publicly shaming a guy over what he did is objectionable, and her defence of it is pathetic. I have no doubt he made her feel uncomfortable, and that makes him a bit of a dick whether he intended to or not, but the internet has a long memory: naming him in an accusation of misogyny is a big deal, and in my book that makes her by far the bigger dick.

MrGraw is NOT the man in the lift, but another blogger's name, a woman. And that piece you quote is about a post that woman wrote.

fatmammycat

Dades wrote: »

Have we established that Elevator Guy was privy to all her pre-elevator remarks/preferences?

He could, afaik, just have been the wrong guy in the wrong lift with the wrong skepchick.

"but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more." I'm guessing he heard what she had to say earlier.

nozzferrahhtoo

fatmammycat wrote: »

"but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more." I'm guessing he heard what she had to say earlier.

Yes but what PARTS of what she had to say earlier we have no information on. He may have entirely missed the one piece of her talks that you are assuming he heard here. Or maybe what he finds interesting was nothing at all from that day but from his dipping in and out of some of her blog.

I think it important to highlight just how little we know in fact. We do not know if the guy even EXISTS, or was he something created to make a point. We do not even know his side of the story. We... literally... know.... nothing.

axer

It seems quite hypocritical that this women who does not like being sexually objectified has no problem making money out of other women being sexually objectified.

Screenshot taken from here:
http://skepchick.org/2011/04/guest-post-jeff-penalty-surly-amys-birthday/

Cavehill Red

To summarise: a militant feminist attention seeker sought to present a polite late-night come-on as a violation, got called on her exaggeration by one of the world's smartest people, and parlayed that into further attention?

Sounds like a win-win for her.

Meanwhile, where do I apply to in order to get back the half-hour I just wasted on her me-me-me fixation?

Ickle Magoo

Does she get to choose what ads are on the site?

And in what way does an ad on the internet detract from the point she's making re men approaching her in a lift at 4am making her feel uncomfortable?

axer

Not the only one either as this was on the same page.

fatmammycat

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes but what PARTS of what she had to say earlier we have no information on. He may have entirely missed the one piece of her talks that you are assuming he heard here. Or maybe what he finds interesting was nothing at all from that day but from his dipping in and out of some of her blog.

I think it important to highlight just how little we know in fact. We do not know if the guy even EXISTS, or was he something created to make a point. We do not even know his side of the story. We... literally... know.... nothing.

I am unsure why you would doubt her version of events. In any event, even assuming he did not hear her talk, her remarks on her video were for future reference, in other words please don't hit in her like that, it makes her uncomfortable.

fatmammycat

axer wrote: »

Not the only one either as this was on the same page.

You do realise you don't always get to choose goole ads on sites, right?

King Mob

axer wrote: »

It seems quite hypocritical that this women who does not like being sexually objectified has no problem making money out of other women being sexually objectified.

Screenshot taken from here:

Those are google ads, people who own the website they are displayed on don't have much control on what's shown in those little boxes.

nozzferrahhtoo

fatmammycat wrote: »

I am unsure why you would doubt her version of events.

I doubt everything I have been offered zero evidence for. Its why I am on this forum and not the Christianity one given they practice the exact opposite approach over there :-)