Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

axer

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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?

She has to choice to block certain types of ads and the choice to not use advertisers who have ads that sexually objectify women.

Also it takes away from her point completely in that she says that rich white men like richard dawkins don't get it (even though her example with the elevator is ridiculus) but yet she shows she is happy enough to make money from sexual objectification of women. Maybe she doesn't get it or maybe she is a hypocrite.

Cavehill Red

fatmammycat wrote: »

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

Er, actually, it's entirely within the site owner's capability to block any ad they choose.

fatmammycat

Cavehill Red wrote: »

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?

Let me summarise it for you properly. Mild mannered atheist, politely declines offer of coffee at 4am, but mentions in a video, that for future reference, please don't do that, it makes her uncomfortable. **** storm ensues, where supposedly smart people make all manner of assumptions.

fatmammycat

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Er, actually, it's entirely within the site owner's capability to block any ad they choose.

Not it isn't.

Ickle Magoo

axer wrote: »

She has to choice to block certain types of ads and the choice to not use advertisers who have ads that sexually objectify women.

Also it takes away from her point completely in that she says that rich white men like richard dawkins don't get it (even though her example with the elevator is ridiculus) but yet she shows she is happy enough to make money from sexual objectification of women. Maybe she doesn't get it or maybe she is a hypocrite.

So it's completely wrong to work on the assumption that the guy that approached her was drunk/intimidating/innapropriate but assuming she both knows and approves of such ads is perfectly acceptable...

Deary me.

fatmammycat

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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 :-)

She gave her version of events, that is evidence.

nozzferrahhtoo

fatmammycat wrote: »

She gave her version of events, that is evidence.

Its her version that I have not been given the evidence for though. Evidence is not evidence of itself Thats a bit like saying the bible is true cause it says so in the bible.... something we here on this side of the forum are ALSO rather familiar with.

fatmammycat

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Its her version that I have not been given the evidence for though. Evidence is not evidence of itself Thats a bit like saying the bible is true cause it says so in the bible.... something we here on this side of the forum are ALSO rather familiar with.

That one will have to float about the ether of my brain for a spell , right I'd better get back to work, it's been interesting.

robindch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

Not sure, but I'd imagine that you can elect not to receive certain classes. Or else, having seen what shows up, simply decide not to run them. The point's a good one though -- if "objectification" is the objection, then some consistency would be good.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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?

Whatever about the appropriateness or otherwise of that, it's the subsequent character assassination that I object to most of all

axer

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So it's completely wrong to work on the assumption that the guy that approached her was drunk/intimidating/innapropriate but assuming she both knows and approves of such ads is perfectly acceptable...

Deary me.

I can see the adverts on her website surely she is responsible for the content on her website. I am not assuming anything other than she is making money (or trying to money at least) from adverts that sexually objectify women. Surely you can see that that is hypocritical?

King Mob

Cavehill Red wrote: »

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?

Again illustrating the problem.
Just dismissing her point by declaring her over-sensitive or a drama queen or a militant feminist, is kinda sexist and disappointing to see in the atheist community, especially from one of the figureheads.

Cavehill Red

fatmammycat wrote: »

Not it isn't.

Yes it is. You simply place the URLs to be blocked in the ad filter in adsense.

Oh, and don't seek to perpetrate your matriarchal supremacy on me by denying my right to free speech and drowning out my freedom of expression with your matriarchal fascism.

I summarised it as I saw it. You see it a different way. The difference between the likes of me, and maybe the (possibly non-existent) elevator guy too, and you and pore downtrodden skepchick, is that we aren't trying to tell you what to think or how to behave.

Ickle Magoo

seamus wrote: »

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".

There's a world of difference between approaching a women in a bar, in a club, at whatever social occasion - and following her into a lift at 4 am when she's said her good-nights...there is clearly plenty of more appropriate middle ground available there without ever touching on being sterile.

Dades

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.

What - he found her saying she was tired and going to bed interesting?

Not buying he was fully aware of what he was getting into...

FREE THE ELEVATOR ONE! HE IS INNOCENT, I SAY!

Cavehill Red

King Mob wrote: »

Again illustrating the problem.
Just dismissing her point by declaring her over-sensitive or a drama queen or a militant feminist, is kinda sexist and disappointing to see in the atheist community, especially from one of the figureheads.

Seeking to equate a polite invitation for coffee with violation is over-sensitive and over-dramatising. She is a self-defined feminist, and her interpretation of these events indicate that she is somewhat militant in her perspective.
The only sexism I can discern here is her assumption that the invitation she may (or may not) have received to chat more actually meant a predatory desire for sex with her.

fatmammycat

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Yes it is. You simply place the URLs to be blocked in the ad filter in adsense.

Oh, and don't seek to perpetrate your matriarchal supremacy on me by denying my right to free speech and drowning out my freedom of expression with your matriarchal fascism.

I summarised it as I saw it. You see it a different way. The difference between the likes of me, and maybe the (possibly non-existent) elevator guy too, and you and pore downtrodden skepchick, is that we aren't trying to tell you what to think or how to behave.

You can block the ones you don't like, but google shuffle means other ads can take their place. Matriarchal supremacy, LOL. Get over yourself.

Ickle Magoo

axer wrote: »

I can see the adverts on her website surely she is responsible for the content on her website. I am not assuming anything other than she is making money (or trying to money at least) from adverts that sexually objectify women. Surely you can see that that is hypocritical?

Only if she knows they are there and is knowingly making money from those particular adverts - and making such a claim would require an assumption and that's just not on, is it? Hypocritical glass houses and all that...

fatmammycat

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Seeking to equate a polite invitation for coffee with violation is over-sensitive and over-dramatising. She is a self-defined feminist, and her interpretation of these events indicate that she is somewhat militant in her perspective.
The only sexism I can discern here is her assumption that the invitation she may (or may not) have received to chat more actually meant a predatory desire for sex with her.

She said it made her uncomfortable. Whither the fear of 'predatory desire for sex'? Why do you keep adding bit and pieces on to it?

robindch

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Oh, and don't seek to perpetrate your matriarchal supremacy on me by denying my right to free speech and drowning out my freedom of expression with your matriarchal fascism.

I hope you're being ironic there.

Cavehill Red

fatmammycat wrote: »

You can block the ones you don't like, but google shuffle means other ads can take their place.

So we agree that Skepchick or whatever she calls herself could easily block all the ads on her site that objectify and sexualise women if she chose. Good. Moving on...

fatmammycat wrote: »

Matriarchal supremacy, LOL. Get over yourself.

Glad you picked up on my satire. This is exactly what Skepchick ought to have done - got over herself. However, since she makes her living out of her attention-seeking, of course she's not going to do that. She's going to blow hot air into this until it's garnered her plenty of lucrative hits on her website and loads of nice invitations to conferences in nice places. Dawkins' only mistake here was fuelling her flame of self-promotion.

fatmammycat

I'm pretty sure she got plenty of invitations to places to speak before old Dick stuck his oar in.

King Mob

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Seeking to equate a polite invitation for coffee with violation is over-sensitive and over-dramatising.

Not what she did.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

She is a self-defined feminist, and her interpretation of these events indicate that she is somewhat militant in her perspective.

A lot of jumps in logic there, again based on something she didn't do.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The only sexism I can discern here is her assumption that the invitation she may (or may not) have received to chat more actually meant a predatory desire for sex with her.

And again just never said any of that.

Her point was that the invitation in those circumstances made her uncomfortable (not fearful or disgusted, just uncomfortable) and that most men probably wouldn't understand why it was uncomfortable.
That's it. Everything else you've said she's implying is your own creation.

Also it's kind of sickening to see people start to drift over to the idea that she's making this up.

fatmammycat

Cavehill Red wrote: »

So we agree that Skepchick or whatever she calls herself could easily block all the ads on her site that objectify and sexualise women if she chose. Good. Moving on...



Glad you picked up on my satire. This is exactly what Skepchick ought to have done - got over herself. However, since she makes her living out of her attention-seeking, of course she's not going to do that. She's going to blow hot air into this until it's garnered her plenty of lucrative hits on her website and loads of nice invitations to conferences in nice places. Dawkins' only mistake here was fuelling her flame of self-promotion.

Why don't you answer my question, how does being uncomfortable = fear of predatory sex?

Cavehill Red

fatmammycat wrote: »

Why don't you answer my question, how does being uncomfortable = fear of predatory sex?

That's her obvious implication, unless one assumes she's made uncomfortable by either coffee or explaining her ideas.

fatmammycat

Cavehill Red wrote: »

That's her obvious implication, unless one assumes she's made uncomfortable by either coffee or explaining her ideas.

Oh that just sad, implications, guess work, attributing all manner of 'maybes' to bolster your argument, anything except take on face value what she actually said.

King Mob

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Glad you picked up on my satire. This is exactly what Skepchick ought to have done - got over herself. However, since she makes her living out of her attention-seeking, of course she's not going to do that. She's going to blow hot air into this until it's garnered her plenty of lucrative hits on her website and loads of nice invitations to conferences in nice places. Dawkins' only mistake here was fuelling her flame of self-promotion.

So she made a small point in a video for her subscribers in the hopes of getting a prominent atheist to say something stupid so she could blow it out of proportion to get her invited to even more talks and conferences than she is already doing?

Makes total sense, and is based on a totally rational and balanced foundation :rolleyes:

amacachi

Cavehill Red wrote: »

That's her obvious implication, unless one assumes she's made uncomfortable by either coffee or explaining her ideas.

I think it was the slight increase in pressure and temperature caused by his presence that made her uncomfortable.

fatmammycat

King Mob wrote: »

So she made a small point in a video for her subscribers in the hopes of getting a prominent atheist to say something stupid so she could blow it out of proportion to get her invited to even more talks and conferences than she is already doing?

Makes total sense, and is based on a totally rational and balanced foundation :rolleyes:

I know, the gas part is, the section where she asks 'please don't do that' is only about a minute long in an 8 minute video saying what a good time she had. BURN THE WITCH!

Ickle Magoo

King Mob wrote: »

Her point was that the invitation in those circumstances made her uncomfortable (not fearful or disgusted, just uncomfortable) and that most men probably wouldn't understand why it was uncomfortable.

She certainly got that much bang on the money...

fatmammycat

amacachi wrote: »

I think it was the slight increase in pressure and temperature caused by his presence that made her uncomfortable.

Maybe it was a strange man hitting on her at 4am in a lift in a strange city...oh no wait, that's exactly what she said.

fatmammycat

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

She certainly got that much bang on the money...

She sure did. Right, I have to get back to work or I'll be here all day in this bloomin' office.

King Mob

I'm assuming all these thanks I'm getting from the girls mean I'm totally in there, right? :pac:

amacachi

It's pretty easy for someone who is blowing something out of proportion to be right about the fact that others will disagree.

amacachi

King Mob wrote: »

I'm assuming all these thanks I'm getting from the girls mean I'm totally in there, right? :pac:

Well done, you just hit on them and therefore have shown your true colours in thinking that they're lower-status people.

Cavehill Red

fatmammycat wrote: »

Maybe it was a strange man hitting on her at 4am in a lift in a strange city...oh no wait, that's exactly what she said.

I thought she said she was invited for coffee and a chat?
But YOU say she was hit on. Let's explore this more, especially since you rejected my suggestion that she was trying to imply a predatory offer of sex. What do you mean by 'hit on', exactly?

mewso

I don't know this girl but I assume she is considered an intelligent person so I would be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that this guy was making her uncomfortable but regardless it's impossible to know the exact circumstances. Dawkins was a bit OTT with his response and what has happened since is the real issue here as has been said already.

I don't see why people need to debate back and forth about whether this guy was out of line or not.

Most of the men are imagining a poor shy fella who drank one too many and for the first time in his life took a chance and took the knock-back like a man behaving like a perfect gentleman. Hes a hero ffs.

The ladies see a drunken lech who did his best to catch the girl alone in a location where she couldn't get away from him. A creep.

Mind you while reading the thread the overriding feeling I had was why do we need to have discussions on what it's like to be a female Atheist? Can Atheist Ireland organise a talk on what it's like to be a basket weaving Atheist next year? How about what it's like to be a male Atheist? It 'aint all sunshine and roses you know.

Ray Palmer

As a bloke I would not do this as it would be seen as creepy. I see her point completely. A confined space, late at night with either party under the influence. It really depends on what happened between the two in conversation prior to entering the lift. She seemed to suggest they hadn't spoken so it would be creepy IMHO.
To mention it in an open forum was inappropriate by her(did she name him?). To make it into such a big deal and suggest that people who don't see it as a problem are all misogynists is WAY over the top. She should grow a thicker skin and not be so sensitive.

I have never believed a feminism is about fair or equal treatment but the assumption men are conspiring against woman. Serious issues with anybody who accuse a language of having gender bias which should be changed.

There is always a problem when minority groups come together to be united. You simply get nut jobs

sensibleken

You think thats bad. never read the comments under youtube video.

That guy propositioning her in a lift is pretty bad form. Dawkins was just being a dick

Cavehill Red

Agreed, Mewso. I'll never get back either the half-hour I wasted reading about this woman's self-promotion, nor the further half-hour I wasted trying to point out to people on this board why this entire topic is a load of nonsense.
Outta here.

Monty Burnz

sink wrote: »

Amusing or not, it's a very poor argument, essentially it boils down to 'worse stuff happens, so you have no right to complain'. It's not even an argument it's simply dismissive.

Either the man who propositioned her in the elevator was wrong to do so, or he was not. Anything else is a red herring.

Good point.

But another day, another woman would be blogging that she was put out that somebody didn't invite her for coffee because he couldn't see her as a sexual being and a feminist, or some such. There really is nothing wrong in what the guy did, even if she didn't like it. Different folks/strokes - this isn't a feminist issue in my view, it's a personal one.

copeyhagen

your man had a wile of a horn on em, big deal

strobe

Hey, I skipped the last couple of pages there so maybe someone has addressed this already (?) but just to re-iterate what I said in a previous post:

It was PZ Meyers on his blog that went off an a bizarre 'propositioning a woman is misogynistic sexism of untold apocalyptic proportions!!!!!' rant. The girl Walters in question just said it made her feel uncomfortable and requested guys don't do it (at least in the video in question). While I think Walters feeling uncomfortable with men propositioning her is her issue to deal with and not any guys, she did not say it was misogyny or sexism, PZ did.

Dawkins post should probably have been leveled at Meyers, not Walters, and Walters annoyance should probably be with Meyers for misrepresenting what she said.

nozzferrahhtoo

fatmammycat wrote: »

That one will have to float about the ether of my brain for a spell , right I'd better get back to work, it's been interesting.

Seems you did not work long, You came back pretty fast

It is simple enough, I just mean that you are presenting as evidence (her side of the story) that which I am saying I have no evidence for (her side of the story). If someone asks you to substantiate a story, they are not asking you to repeat the story.

Ickle Magoo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Good point.

But another day, another woman would be blogging that she was put out that somebody didn't invite her for coffee because he couldn't see her as a sexual being and a feminist, or some such. There really is nothing wrong in what the guy did, even if she didn't like it. Different folks/strokes - this isn't a feminist issue in my view, it's a personal one.

Approaching a woman you don't know in a lift at 4 am to come to your hotel room is not your average coffee invite...she said it made her uncomfortable, I think that's understandable given those specific circumstances.

mikhail

fatmammycat wrote: »

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

You can block certain ads you find inappropriate for your site. The ads seem inappropriate for their message, but they may not know how to block them. I wouldn't draw any conclusions.

Monty Burnz

fatmammycat wrote: »

She said it made her uncomfortable.

Is anything that someone does that makes you uncomfortable morally wrong? I get uncomfortable when people eat with their mouths open. I also get uncomfortable when girls I hardly know tell me random stuff about their boyfriends. Where do I go for sympathy?

Monty Burnz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Approaching a woman you don't know in a lift at 4 am to come to your hotel room is not your average coffee invite...she said it made her uncomfortable, I think that's understandable given those specific circumstances.

I'm not disagreeing with that - but it doesn't make the what the guy did 'wrong'. She didn't like it, but another person would have been flattered, and a third person would have gone with him and made sweet, sweet coffee all night long.

The guy might just have easily made the suggestion to another man if he was gay. I just can't see this as a feminist issue.

Galvasean

tawnyowl wrote: »

Asking someone back to your place for coffee is often the modern equivalent of "Would you like to see my etchings?"

Morgase wrote: »

Coffee in a hotel room at 4am = sex. Everybody knows this.

Oh noes, my female friends are always propositioning me and I've been too dumb to notice!
Actually, does this mean Robindch was propositioning me when he invited me out for a drink in another bar after the last skeptics in the pub meeting?
But honestly, asking someone around for a coffee while actually meaning coffee is not as unheard of as some would suggest. I don't know which the guy in the lift was looking for, but to say that a late night coffee offer from someone you've just met definitely means sex is just not correct.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

She stated she was tired and going to her room.

tawnyowl wrote: »

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

This can be every bit as much a pick up line as asking someone around for coffee. Personally, on more than one ocassion I've been out in bars chatting up to a woman, only for her to say something along the lines of, "Oh, I'm so tired. Think I'll go back to my apartment/house" (often while batting the eyelids). So you follow her out, hop in a taxi together, SHAZAM! She's got you in the sack. [/bragging]
Maybe that's what the guy thought the girl was doing when she said she was turning in for the night?

mikhail

This thread:

Ickle Magoo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with that - but it doesn't make the what the guy did 'wrong'. She didn't like it, but another person would have been flattered, and a third person would have gone with him and made sweet, sweet coffee all night long.

The guy might just have easily made the suggestion to another man if he was gay. I just can't see this as a feminist issue.

I don't think people acting out of self-interest or are unthinking are "wrong" - it was just inappropriate and made her feel uncomfortable. I think women who would take up a the offer of coffee in the hotel room of a stranger they just got into a lift with at 4 am would be in a distinct minority, tbh.

I don't think it is specifically a feminist issue either - beyond RW being a feminist...and perhaps how right she was that a lot of men wouldn't or couldn't understand why it made her so uncomfortable.