Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

AudreyHepburn

I have to say I am a little surprised at the number of people willing to critise this woman for feeling uncomfortable when propositioned by a complete stranger alone in a life at nigh

If it were me I would feel uncomfortable too. I am not precious or a drama before anyone says it. I am simply aware of the dangerous women alone at night can face and while not the worst thing the man could have done to her I do think it is completely inappropriate for a man/woman to ask a total stranger for sex in that manner.

As for Dawkins, he may have been making a good point but as usual he was dismissive and condscending about it which wouldn't encourage anyone to listen to him.

Monty Burnz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have to say I am a little surprised at the number of people willing to critise this woman for feeling uncomfortable when propositioned by a complete stranger alone in a life at nigh

Holy crapola. Once again this canard is trotted out.

Can you please post links to the people who are arguing that she wasn't entitled to feel uncomfortable, or exhilarated, or sad, or happy when a guy 'invited her for coffee'?

I'm not saying they definitely don't exist, but I certainly don't remember seeing them - and based on what you are saying above, you seem to have seen a lot of them. Can you please share?

Nodin

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have to say I am a little surprised at the number of people willing to critise this woman for feeling uncomfortable when propositioned by a complete stranger alone in a life at nigh

............

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73199134&postcount=316

Justicar

Wicknight wrote: »

Don't feed the trolls

When a professional mathematician/logician tears asunder a fallacious chain of reasoning, it doesn't, alas, make him a troll. Not agreeing with someone because their claim is logically untenable isn't trolling. Calling someone a troll because you don't understand logical structures isn't really an indictment against or refutation of what has been presented. It's a form of intellectual pusillanimity. I do appreciate the thought though.

You're a peach.

Monty Burnz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It is a choice to approach a loan woman in the middle of the night with the intention of propositioning.

I had a little chuckle at this.

To boil down your argument, as best I can understand it: men should always go to great lengths to avoid making women think that they are about to be raped. It's where these lengths start and stop is really where I see the conflict.

Justicar

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'll level with you: it was a joke.

So was the first argument I was vivisecting. I'm new here; it's hard to tell when people's arguments are just jokes for poor reasoning, or when they're just joking. =^_^=

el dude

Brilliant. Always get a kick out of smart people being made to look extremely stupid.

Zombrex

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Unfortunately, some men do rape and some men are sexually inappropriate and do sexually assault women - it is the fear of those men that results in some women feeling uncomfortable or associating certain behaviours with creepiness when a man chooses to approach a lone women he doesn't know, with the intention of propositioning. Of course he usually has no heinous motivation but that doesn't mean it isn't scary. I just think it would be very much to men's credit if they were more aware of the effect their choices can have.

That is some what missing the point though.

If Watson was going to be raped in that elevator she was going to be raped in that elevator. The way to avoid that is to not go into an elevator on your own at 4am. It isn't for the rapist to not say something a bit creepy while in the elevator with her. That has got nothing to do with whether he will or won't rape her.

What we are really talking about here is the illusion of safety, not safety itself. What people, including Watson, were really saying is Guys don't say things that remind women that they can be raped, it is uncomfortable and upsetting

That is a world away from actually raping someone or putting someone in a position where they have a genuine threat of being raped.

The idea that if this guy was going to rape her but then just didn't say what he said it would have been all ok is some what ridiculous. This is Hollywood bad guy syndrome. The rapist isn't going to shout 'I'm going to rape you now'.

Justicar

el dude wrote: »

Brilliant. Always get a kick out of smart people being made to look extremely stupid.

Who might that be one wonders?

sink

Justicar wrote: »

No, I'm sorry. That doesn't remotely disturb my argument.

The argument which I countered, if you'll be so kind as to recall, was with respect to "needlessly" making people uncomfortable, intimidated or creeped out.

You've argued that something might be inconvenient to pull off. While that might be true, it's an irrelevant concern since the proposition put forward deals with necessity; and it's that argument to which I responded.

You've committed a category error, and an error of equivocation. Convenience and necessity aren't interchangeable.

Again, my argument is ridiculous in precisely what way, and pitiful in precisely what way?

The difference lies in the level of social relation on which both scenarios take place. The black man on bus scenario is merely an action, it does not involve an interaction with a third party. The man in the elevator scenario is on the level of social contact, it not only involves a third party but also necessitates a response from the third party and is a rare interaction.

Zombrex

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have to say I am a little surprised at the number of people willing to critise this woman for feeling uncomfortable when propositioned by a complete stranger alone in a life at nigh

If it were me I would feel uncomfortable too. I am not precious or a drama before anyone says it. I am simply aware of the dangerous women alone at night can face and while not the worst thing the man could have done to her I do think it is completely inappropriate for a man/woman to ask a total stranger for sex in that manner.

As for Dawkins, he may have been making a good point but as usual he was dismissive and condscending about it which wouldn't encourage anyone to listen to him.

If I woman I had just met in a lift asked me to come back to her hotel room for sex I would be uncomfortable, I would think it was very weird, I would think there is something wrong with this women.

I wouldn't say I just escaped a potential murder.

Does that mean she wasn't planning on killing me? No, she could have been. It just means that she probably wasn't, my life probably wasn't in danger, but I still wasn't going to stick around to find out.

Watson was right to feel uncomfortable about what happened. That though doesn't justify a position that she escaped a raping.

Such a position is only justified in the first place with the idea that all men are potentially thinking of raping women. Remove that assumption and the position that she escaped a sexual assault seems as much an over-reaction as the idea that I escaped a potential murder by not going with the woman in the elevator.

Zombrex

Justicar wrote: »

When a professional mathematician/logician tears asunder a fallacious chain of reasoning, it doesn't, alas, make him a troll.

No, trolling makes them a troll. Please go away.

AudreyHepburn

strobe wrote: »

I've seen American sitcoms. I was just pointing out that it wasn't as overt as asking 'want to get down and dirty'. I'm sure it was probably a round about proposition, but it was put forward in the most inoffensively worded way humanly imaginable.

strobe wrote: »

To be fair he asked her {paraphrasing from her vid} "Don't take this wrong, but I thought you were really interesting, would you like to come up to my room for some coffee to talk more". It's hardly asking if she wants to "get down and dirty".

Kizzonian wrote: »

what are u insinuating? She was tired thats why he said coffee he didnt talk to her maybe he didnt have the courage there is absolutely nothing going on this is stupid wtf im leaving this thread now lol

gypsy_rose wrote: »

i do find it a bit sad though, what if a man meets a woman he genuinely just wants to hang out and be friends with, can he not ask her to go somewhere without worrying that she thinks hes coming onto her?

MrStuffins wrote: »

4 pages of posts in this thread! All because some bloke chanced his arm in a lift! Jaysus!

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

Is the world actually so mental that a guy can't hit on a girl without it being some sort of pseudo-sexist issue?!

If this IS to be deemed as sexist or misogynistic, then surely there's an epidemic of misogyny every night of the week, in every pub, club and bar the world over...

MrStuffins wrote: »

Just because she doesn't like it, doesn't make it mysogonistic. She can say it's inappropriate but it doesn't make it so! Grabbing her boob would've been inappropriate. Asking her back for coffee? Not at all!

Monty,

These are some examples of what I was talking about. Posters seem to feel Watson was incorrect to feel uncomfortable, that is ok for strangers to proposition women alone.

At least thats how I read it.

Justicar

sink wrote: »

The difference lies in the level of social relation on which both scenarios take place. The black man on bus scenario is merely an action, it does not involve an interaction with a third party. The man in the elevator scenario is on the level of social contact, it not only involves a third party but also necessitates a response from the third party and is a rare interaction.

So, you're saying the thing that logically distinguishes one situation from the other is on the degree of social relation?

What if I'm the bus driver? What if I have my feet sprawled across the aisle? What he's a polite black man and says good evening to me? What if he doesn't exact change?

I do not think you've done the remotest bit of work in disturbing my argument in the slightest. All you've said, at base, is that it deals with some level of social relation and action. These features are common in both situations.

In the elevator, it's just social interaction. Just an action - talking.

On the bus, it's just another social encounter - perhaps some chitchat as I'm telling him to get his ass to the back of the bus, or whatever.

I see no feature that is logically distinguishable in one case from the other.

I might be a bit slow; can you explain this social "level" of relation, and how that relates to "action"?

AudreyHepburn

Wicknight wrote: »

If I woman I had just met in a lift asked me to come back to her hotel room for sex I would be uncomfortable, I would think it was very weird, I would think there is something wrong with this women.

I wouldn't say I just escaped a potential murder.

Does that mean she wasn't planning on killing me? No, she could have been. It just means that she probably wasn't, my life probably wasn't in danger, but I still wasn't going to stick around to find out.

Watson was right to feel uncomfortable about what happened. That though doesn't justify a position that she escaped a raping.

Such a position is only justified in the first place with the idea that all men are potentially thinking of raping women. Remove that assumption and the position that she escaped a sexual assault seems as much an over-reaction as the idea that I escaped a potential murder by not going with the woman in the elevator.

Of course it doesn't mean he was going to rape her. But it was an inappropriate thing to do, I think we can agree on that.

But I feel that many posters think she should not have felt uncomfortable, that what he did was ok.

Monty Burnz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Of course it doesn't mean he was going to rape her. But it was an inappropriate thing to do, I think we can agree on that.

I wouldn't do it, but then I don't pick up as many girls as some other guys do.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But I feel that many posters think she should not have felt uncomfortable, that what he did was ok.

Can you please stop asserting this without backing it up?
Oops, I'm an idiot, I missed your previous post. I'll look at it now. Apologies!

sink

Justicar wrote: »

So, you're saying the thing that logically distinguishes one situation from the other is on the degree of social relation?

What if I'm the bus driver? What if I have my feet sprawled across the aisle? What he's a polite black man and says good evening to me? What if he doesn't exact change?

I do not think you've done the remotest bit of work in disturbing my argument in the slightest. All you've said, at base, is that it deals with some level of social relation and action. These features are common in both situations.

In the elevator, it's just social interaction. Just an action - talking.

On the bus, it's just another social encounter - perhaps some chitchat as I'm telling him to get his ass to the back of the bus, or whatever.

I see no feature that is logically distinguishable in one case from the other.

I might be a bit slow; can you explain this social "level" of relation, and how that relates to "action"?

It's part of sociology. My argument stands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_activity_and_interpersonal_relations

Justicar

Wicknight wrote: »

No, trolling makes them a troll. Please go away.

And I have pointed out to you some of the distinctions between trolling and refuting a poor chain of reasoning. This would fall into the latter category. But I'm glad we're both sufficiently reasonable to note that an subject which falls into some predicate is a subject that falls into some predicate. I suppose the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.

Not to put too fine a point on it: merely because you fail to appreciate what it is that satisfies the question "what is a logical structure" doesn't, alas, mean that I'm trolling.

You must do much better than this.

AudreyHepburn

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I wouldn't do it, but then I don't pick up as many girls as some other guys do.

Can you please stop asserting this without backing it up?

I did back it up above.

Ickle Magoo

Wicknight wrote: »

That is some what missing the point though.

If Watson was going to be raped in that elevator she was going to be raped in that elevator. The way to avoid that is to not go into an elevator on your own at 4am. It isn't for the rapist to not say something a bit creepy while in the elevator with her. That has got nothing to do with whether he will or won't rape her.

What we are really talking about here is the illusion of safety, not safety itself. What people, including Watson, were really saying is Guys don't say things that remind women that they can be raped, it is uncomfortable and upsetting

That is a world away from actually raping someone or putting someone in a position where they have a genuine threat of being raped.

The idea that if this guy was going to rape her but then just didn't say what he said it would have been all ok is some what ridiculous. This is Hollywood bad guy syndrome. The rapist isn't going to shout 'I'm going to rape you now'.

Rapist come in all shapes and forms, date rape, marital rape, stranger rape - there seems to be a lot of professing to know some kind of hive-mind that rapists operate with...

Anyway, sure, the best way to avoid such situations is not to put yourself in them - rather than asking folks to show a bit of cop-on and self-restraint clearly the rational thing to do is all hide away so we never have to happen upon such people...still missing the point, really. A hotel elevator at 4am should be safe for a lone woman to traverse without being made to feel uncomfortable due to an unsolicited approach.

I think RW is perfectly right to make a suggestion that the world would be a less uncomfortable place by giving the kind of guys who think a 4am proposition to a lone women in an enclosed area is a good idea just because they are so socially retarded they can't make the same approach when in the bar/lobby/whatever, something to think about.

Zombrex

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But I feel that many posters think she should not have felt uncomfortable, that what he did was ok.

If you see that in what people are writing I've missed it. Most of the comments I see from people who are on the other side are people saying it was a bit creepy but trivial.

Justicar

sink wrote: »

It's part of sociology. My argument stands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_activity_and_interpersonal_relations

You're saying that the thing which demonstrates my chain of reasoning is a citation to a sociology entry wikipedia? Further, not only will show that reasoning flawed, it simultaneously show that it was "pitiful" and "ridiculous"?

One of us has a great deal more confidence in wikipedia than the other it appears.

Who knew: sociology entries on wikipedia could bring ruin to logically sound and valid chains of reasoning. I will definitely have to see about getting a grant to do some research on this particular death-knell.

Dave!

I've only bothered reading snippets of Justicar's posts, but he's going on ignore already... Tiresome stuff...

AudreyHepburn

Wicknight wrote: »

If you see that in what people are writing I've missed it. Most of the comments I see from people who are on the other side are people saying it was a bit creepy but trivial.

I.e. she is overreacting by being uncomfortable.

Monty Burnz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Monty,

These are some examples of what I was talking about. Posters seem to feel Watson was incorrect to feel uncomfortable, that is ok for strangers to proposition women alone.

At least thats how I read it.

Ok, thanks for digging those up. I don't think any of those are arguing that she wasn't entitled to feel uncomfortable though. They do seem to agree that it wasn't a big deal.

Zombrex

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Rapist come in all shapes and forms, date rape, marital rape, stranger rape - there seems to be a lot of professing to know some kind of hive-mind that rapists operate with...

No one has said otherwise. But again if this guy was a rapist and was planning on raping Watson in an elevator he was going to rape her in an elevator.

No one as far as I can see is saying It was stupid of Watson to go to an elevator on her own at 4am, she might have been raped

Again this seems more about the illusion of safety than actual safety. Watson was no more or less at risk of rape after this guy said what he said than she was before he said it. She was no more or less at risk of rape if he had never said it at all.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Anyway, sure, the best way to avoid such situations is not to put yourself in them - rather than asking folks to show a bit of cop-on and self-restraint clearly the rational thing to do is all hide away so we never have to happen upon such people...still missing the point, really. A hotel elevator at 4am should be safe for a lone woman to traverse without being made to feel uncomfortable due to an unsolicited approach.

This demonstrates exactly my point. Being made to feel uncomfortable and being unsafe are entirely different things. And vice versa, feeling comfortable is not the same as being safe.

If this guy had not said anything to Watson but was a rapist she is no more safe in that elevator than if he had said something. In fact she is less safe, since after the proposition she probably was hyper aware of him.

Instead of saying I want to be able to go to a hotel elevator while being safe what Watson is really complaining about is I want to be able to go to a hotel elevator while not being reminded that I'm not safe

Again being comfortable is not being safe and vice versa.

Justicar

Dave! wrote: »

I've only bothered reading snippets of Justicar's posts, but he's going on ignore already... Tiresome stuff...

Yeah, logic is difficult and tiring for a lot of people. It's why so many students fail mathematics and logic classes every term. It takes a good amount of effort.

Monty Burnz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I.e. she is overreacting by being uncomfortable.

Well no - she's overreacting by thinking it's a big deal, and then by going on an epic rant about rape and sexual abuse when Dawkins satirised her position. Dawkins specifically says that she's entitled to feel however she likes.

Privileged Rich White Old Guy wrote:

If she felt his behaviour was creepy, that was her privilege

Zombrex

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I.e. she is overreacting by being uncomfortable.

She is over reacting by the notion that she escaped a potential raping.

I've no issue with her being uncomfortable, I would be uncomfortable if a woman in a lift asked me back to her hotel room. I would think 'Weirdo'. I wouldn't think I've just avoided by murdered.

robindch

Justicar wrote: »

Suffice it to say, some people here have been arguing on a rather curious set of facts which are either a.) not borne out by the evidence or b.) omit countervailing evidence even when said evidence is on the same document. I am under the impression that one of them is a moderator.

If it's me, then please let me know where I've posted something false.

Having said that, and read your longish post above, I have to say I'm not much closer to understanding your view of the incident, or gained anything more worthwhile than a general belief that you can't stand Rebecca Watson. Nor, in any case, would I wish to wager more than the cost of half a penny toffee that you actually are the guy in question, so I'm disinclined to put any more effort into parsing your posts.

And drop the "delenda est" nonsense -- further use will result in carding or a forum ban.

sink

Justicar wrote: »

You're saying that the thing which demonstrates my chain of reasoning is a citation to a sociology entry wikipedia? Further, not only will show that reasoning flawed, it simultaneously show that it was "pitiful" and "ridiculous"?

One of us has a great deal more confidence in wikipedia than the other it appears.

Who knew: sociology entries on wikipedia could bring ruin to logically sound and valid chains of reasoning. I will definitely have to see about getting a grant to do some research on this particular death-knell.

If a wikipedia entry is so unsatisfactory I recommend reading 'Economy and Society' - Max Weber , which will provide you with better insight.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Nor, in any case, would I wish to wager more than the cost of half a penny toffee that you actually are the guy in question, so I'm disinclined to put any more effort into parsing your posts.

Ickle Magoo

Wicknight wrote: »

No one has said otherwise. But again if this guy was a rapist and was planning on raping Watson in an elevator he was going to rape her in an elevator.

No one as far as I can see is saying It was stupid of Watson to go to an elevator on her own at 4am, she might have been raped

Again this seems more about the illusion of safety than actual safety. Watson was no more or less at risk of rape after this guy said what he said than she was before he said it. She was no more or less at risk of rape if he had never said it at all.

I thought it was about her discomfort - and the reason for that discomfort. That her first thoughts at being propositioned may be fear and then annoyance of being made to feel fearful due to someone else's social ineptitudes is not the same as accusing that particular man of being about to rape her.

Wicknight wrote: »

This demonstrates exactly my point. Being made to feel uncomfortable and being unsafe are entirely different things. And vice versa, feeling comfortable is not the same as being safe.

If this guy had not said anything to Watson but was a rapist she is no more safe in that elevator than if he had said something. In fact she is less safe, since after the proposition she probably was hyper aware of him.

Instead of saying I want to be able to go to a hotel elevator while being safe what Watson is really complaining about is I want to be able to go to a hotel elevator while not being reminded that I'm not safe

Again being comfortable is not being safe and vice versa.

I don't know if I agree that was the point being made - and I'm not sure of the distinction being made between wanting to feel safe and not being reminded that potentially she isn't safe - I imagine both hold just as true.

If the guy was a rapist it would have been a completely different blog. From what I've read I don't believe RW ever refers to him as potential rapist or infers all men are rapists. I think the point RW was making is why discomfort is felt - and that it is inextricably linked to the very real risks posed by some men to women...culminating in a plea to guys who needlessly place women in a position of feeling uncomfortable by approaching them in inappropriate places and at inappropriate times, to just think about what they are doing if they want to avoid being thought of as a complete oaf. Pretty basic stuff until Dawkins wades in with his dismissive bucketful of hypocrisy.

Justicar

robindch wrote: »

If it's me, then please let me know where I've posted something false.

I didn't take notes of who said what wrong. Like I said, there was an awful lot of stupid crammed into 22 pages. Further, it would appear you have no plans to demonstrate reading comprehension. I clearly, explicitly stated that it wasn't a complete argument; for that, there was magically mysterious other place on the internet where it's being held hostage.

Having said that, and read your longish post above, I have to say I'm not much closer to understanding your view of the incident, or gained anything more worthwhile than a general belief that you can't stand Rebecca Watson.

Well, I am certainly in no position to argue that you should be able to understand fairly straightforward language and simply put chains of reasoning. So, I think we're agreed there.

Nor, in any case, would I wish to wager more than the cost of half a penny toffee that you actually are the guy in question, so I'm disinclined to put any more effort into parsing your posts.

You didn't put in any in the first place, otherwise the very first paragraph wouldn't have confused you. Nor would the comedy label on the video have escaped your steely mind. Nor would you be somewhat not quite sure about whether or not I hold Rebecca Twatson in high esteem. These are fairly obvious, and to help it along just ever so slightly, I did you the courtesy of writing it down for you. I know, that's my folly, but I wasn't in the mood to draw big bird pictures with ugly crayons.

And drop the "delenda est" nonsense -- further use will result in carding or a forum ban.

No, please! Anything but that! Do NOT throw me into the briar-patch! But you get down with your bad self breaking me off right and proper with the powerful, important internet button pushing skills you have going on there.

Also, and again I know you're not good at reading so I'll type this slowly for you, I said I only came here because of the trackback, and that I would be happy to answer any questions. In the interim time, I thought I'd try out your little community here and see what kind of thinking goes on. I'm unimpressed let's just say. I was quite patent about those two things - you know, showing up as a courtesy to disabuse some of your less intellectually fortunate members. I note that you are one since it would require almost no research beyond reads words on a page to know that I'm not the real elevator guy.

Seriously, you've demonstrated a near perfect ability at being functionally illiterate; your members here en masse lack the capacity to understand logical predicates of first order logical structures--we're not talking predicate calculus stuff here--and then the asshat who thinks a logically sound and valid chain of reasoning is vulnerable to the great juju powers of wikipedia. C'mon, surely you guys can find some smarter* people to chat on here.

Congratulations. Here's a fortune cookie. Wait, give that back. I'll read it for you to again, you know, help you out.

Why oh why do I even bother slumming in places like this. They told me you guys would be half-retarded; I just couldn't listen. Well-played there I suppose.

For you though, since I'm such a nice guy, I'll formal, proper latin instead of that nasty slang.

Ceterum censeo Rebecco Twatson esse delendam.

*the trick is getting them to want to stick around

I think you are the kind of people Bertand Russell had in mind: most men would rather die than think. And most do.

Tootles. =^_^=

liamw

Dave! wrote: »

I've only bothered reading snippets of Justicar's posts, but he's going on ignore already... Tiresome stuff...

You made a wise decision...

Justicar

liamw wrote: »

You made a wise decision...

Wise isn't really a word you guys should be using amongst yourselves. Just sayin'. =^_^=

enfant terrible

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think RW is perfectly right to make a suggestion that the world would be a less uncomfortable place by giving the kind of guys who think a 4am proposition to a lone women in an enclosed area is a good idea just because they are so socially retarded they can't make the same approach when in the bar/lobby/whatever, something to think about.

I don't think she'll be getting many approaches now

Zombrex

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If the guy was a rapist it would have been a completely different blog. From what I've read I don't believe RW ever refers to him as potential rapist or infers all men are rapists.

She doesn't. Her initial objection was that it was sexist and objectifying (which is of course bad, done with that sort of thing). She does though endorse others who have said the potential rape situation.

When we feel uncomfortable about something that has happened to us we naturally look for a rational reason to justify such feelings.

That doesn't mean though we don't find reasons that are huge over reactions. When this is done in the context of, say black men, people have no trouble combating the over reaction with the notion of not justifying racism under the argument that it made you uncomfortable. After all just because some black men commit crimes that doesn't mean a white person made uncomfortable by a black man should dictate to black people how not to make white people uncomfortable. Such arrogance would be seen as highly inappropriate.

This balance is something that seems to be largely missing, or at the very least some what social unacceptable, when it comes to women and their fear of men.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Pretty basic stuff until Dawkins wades in with his dismissive bucketful of hypocrisy.

Dawkins waded in to the potential rape situation nonsense.

strobe

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Monty,

These are some examples of what I was talking about. Posters seem to feel Watson was incorrect to feel uncomfortable,

That was obviously not what I meant by my comment. In fact my very first post in the thread made that painfully clear...

that (it) is ok for strangers to proposition women alone.

As opposed to propositioning women in front of a bunch of people? ('Cause that goes down really well...) :that smiley I despise:

Bob Cratchet

What if it was a women asking a man back for a coffee, would it have been such a bid deal ? - These high horse feminists and their ego's make me laugh.

Zombrex

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

What if it was a women asking a man back for a coffee, would it have been such a bid deal ? - These high horse feminists and their ego's make me laugh.

Of course not, because a woman has never done anything bad to a man. :P

Ickle Magoo

Wicknight wrote: »

She doesn't. Her initial objection was that it was sexist and objectifying (which is of course bad, done with that sort of thing). She does though endorse others who have said the potential rape situation.

I don't know what potential rape situ has to do with it - other than giving a very obvious explanation as to why a 4am coffee invite to a strange man's hotel room doesn't automatically make everyone think of coffee and a natter...and if we accept there is a potential sexual element to the request then you have to accept there is numerous other potentials to the situation...certainly some far less likely than other but enough to cause the feeling of unease, certainly.

Wicknight wrote: »

When we feel uncomfortable about something that has happened to us we naturally look for a rational reason to justify such feelings.

Equally when other people appear to be inferring we make them uncomfortable we often look for ways to dismiss and ridicule their rationale...

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't mean though we don't find reasons that are huge over reactions. When this is done in the context of, say black men, people have no trouble combating the over reaction with the notion of not justifying racism under the argument that it made you uncomfortable. After all just because some black men commit crimes that doesn't mean a white person made uncomfortable by a black man should dictate to black people how not to make white people uncomfortable. Such arrogance would be seen as highly inappropriate.

As posted above though - being approached by someone deliberately initiating contact, in a particular scenario, with ambiguous sexual undertones is not the same as being uncomfortable at being around a particular gender/race/whatever full stop. The closest analogy I can think of is if you were constantly approached by those groups of guys which made you feel quite intimidated; sometimes they are just after a friendly chat, sometimes you get pushed around and a couple of times you get beaten up - now, a group approaches you, what is your initial feeling going to be? Is that your fault or the fault of those whose behaviour has led you to feeling wary?

Wicknight wrote: »

This balance is something that seems to be largely missing, or at the very least some what social unacceptable, when it comes to women and their fear of men.

Well, no. I think the balance is accepting not all men are rapists [and I don't know anyone who thinks otherwise] and also accepting approaching a lone women in an elevator at 4 am for a self-serving proposition could be intimidating and make her feel uncomfortable - a situation any man with an ounce of self-awareness would surely wish to avoid?

Wicknight wrote: »

Dawkins waded in to the potential rape situation nonsense.

Using the same stance I've seen him and others here argue against a million times, not cool Dick, not cool. All he really did was highlight the irony of accepting some advances are inappropriate and understandably cause discomfort while blithely ignoring the reasons for that and neatly passing them off as privileged western female hysteria.

Zombrex

Normally wouldn't just post someone else' words, but this I feel is a very good assessment of the storm in a tea cup, from the skepchick comments section

Post by lordpasternack
I am going to give a nuanced view in this storm in a teacup that has polarised and confused so many people. I write this as a woman who doesn’t mind being hit on, and who moves in circles where I perhaps naively think what you used to think. I don’t fear being raped, and I don’t feel surrounded by misogynists. I also come from the UK, where there might be a real cultural difference that engenders these sentiments.

I think Rebecca’s initial complaint was entirely reasonable. She was calm and brief about it – and was justifiably made uneasy by the man’s approach of her in the elevator. I wouldn’t personally feel so edgy, but that’s my stance. She made no comment about genuinely fearing rape or assault, and I really do think that the guy was probably well-meaning but oblivious to how uncomfortable he was making her feel.

I didn’t see, I haven’t seen, the initial comments that got this storm really going on the side of the misogynists/ignoramuses. What I did see was the feminist responses, which from my vantage point looked hysterical – some of which genuinely aggressive and stupid – crying rape – and specifically putting this man down as a premeditative, predatory, sexist bastard – rather than someone who on the face of it sounds as though he would have apologised there and then if he’d known he’d made Rebecca uneasy.

These feminist responses made me angry, seriously angry. I will admit that I’ve been starting to find feminists within the atheist community to be becoming parodies of themselves. I could not help but balk at that event a while back where a woman protested at being called ‘female’ – and at the response to Elisabeth Cornwell’s talk – even while I agreed that it was obtuse to have a panel about women in atheism populated by men. (And hey, even the panel populated by women still didn’t fail in causing controversy!)

So this is a war, a polarised and polarising war, that has been stewing for quite a long time now. And I notice part of the problem. I am only picking up on the angry feminist responses – the responses I view as not only aggressive, but stupid and irrational. And PZ and others are completely failing to notice that part of the formula, and are asking the likes of myself why we’re so mad at Rebecca for having the gall to say no to a man who came onto her in the wrong place and at the wrong time, and for communicating that it made her uneasy via YouTube.

Either side is genuinely failing to see part of the picture – of all the provocations that have catalysed this tempest in a thimble – that have driven some to respond in anger on either side.

And on a bigger scale, many feminists are guility of what they accuse privileged men (and women) of being: oblivious. As you imply – many men and some women don’t normally live with fear or uneasiness around men, and would quickly brush Elevator Guy off and be done with it. Rebecca sort of did this. It’s obvious that though she was made to feel uneasy, she wasn’t sweating profusely, shaking like a leaf and grabbing for her rape alarm during the incident.

That is on my level of comprehension. Step back for a minute and imagine how some feminist rhetoric (not necessarily from yourself) looks from that vantage point. All the screaming about potential heinous assault, and how this man is obviously a big horrible mean predatory creep. Imagine how you’d have considered that before ‘converting’ to feminism.

And then encourage more people to do what you are trying to do and tell myself and others to step back and try to see your vantage point and why YOU are angry. You don’t want to be shouted at about how you should feel about a particular scenario. Curiously, neither do those who disagree with any particular feminist view about said scenario.

I get the feeling that much of this dispute has involved a crowd of loosely organised people screaming and shouting past each other, with a few composed voices butting in edgeways, but being mostly drowned out by the predominating angst.

I also think that Richard jumped the gun. I have been involved in a few web dramas involving Richard now, and I can assure you, it is entirely his style to butt in in a passion, while under-informed, and say his sincerely meant but ill-considered and misinformed piece – which, with further reflection he’ll partially retract and apologise for. I hope he does the latter here.

I don’t even think he saw/heard Rebecca’s actual words before he said what he said. I think he was reacting in a passion to the ‘hysterical feminists’ and took it upon himself to presume that the original source herself had been so impassioned about what happened that early morning in Dublin. This is again, unfortunately, not unlike Richard. For all that he waxes noble about careful skepticism, he is at times more ready to jump to conclusions and fail to do even the most basic research before giving his tuppence.

I have emailed Richard personally, detailing why Rebecca deserves an apology – even if he never meant to direct his ire towards her personally – and even though Richard and I may still not agree with some of the feminists hanging around. Rebecca personally did nothing to provoke his ire, and he did nothing to avoid it looking as though his words were directed at her personally.

He may not read that email – but hopefully he will catch wind of some of what is being said, and realise that he rightly owes her an apology, for the manner in which he chose to express his indignation over the drama that flared up in the wake of her words.

These are my thoughts as they stand right now. Thanks for listening.

Ickle Magoo

Other than this:

lordpasternack wrote:

I didn’t see, I haven’t seen, the initial comments that got this storm really going on the side of the misogynists/ignoramuses. What I did see was the feminist responses, which from my vantage point looked hysterical

Which I think is [deliberately] ignoring a great deal of what posters, bloggers and indeed myself posting here have been responding to, it's a very good post - with slightly less bias and with slightly more awareness of both the misogynist/ignoramus point as well as the OTT "feminists" that pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter too.

Zombrex

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't know what potential rape situ has to do with it - other than giving a very obvious explanation as to why a 4am coffee invite to a strange man's hotel room doesn't automatically make everyone think of coffee and a natter...and if we accept there is a potential sexual element to the request then you have to accept there is numerous other potentials to the situation...certainly some far less likely than other but enough to cause the feeling of unease, certainly.

Again I don't think anyone is objecting to Watson feeling unease.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Equally when other people appear to be inferring we make them uncomfortable we often look for ways to dismiss and ridicule their rationale...

I didn't make Rebecca Watson uncomfortable, nor did anyone else who has been commenting on this.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

As posted above though - being approached by someone deliberately initiating contact, in a particular scenario, with ambiguous sexual undertones is not the same as being uncomfortable at being around a particular gender/race/whatever full stop.

Its not. Which is why spinning this out into a rant against men is getting so many people's backs up. Don't forget the original context of this even being mentioned was Watson telling the viewers of her blog 'Don't do that guys'.

Imagine I'm on a bus at night with plenty of empty seats and a black man sits down beside me. This makes me mighty uncomfortable. Why is he sitting beside me, lots of other seats. I get up and hope off the bus.

I then post on Youtube telling black men Don't do this, it makes white people uncomfortable.

A few other bloggers then start saying that I was lucky to avoid a potential mugging and possibly even murder.

Anyone see the problem with either or both of those things?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The closest analogy I can think of is if you were constantly approached by those groups of guys which made you feel quite intimidated; sometimes they are just after a friendly chat, sometimes you get pushed around and a couple of times you get beaten up - now, a group approaches you, what is your initial feeling going to be?

Are you saying that Rebecca Watson has been raped a couple of times?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, no. I think the balance is accepting not all men are rapists [and I don't know anyone who thinks otherwise] and also accepting approaching a lone women in an elevator at 4 am for a self-serving proposition could be intimidating and make her feel uncomfortable - a situation any man with an ounce of self-awareness would surely wish to avoid?

Good point. So why exactly is Rebecca Watson blogging about this under the guise of telling men that they really shouldn't do this?

You can't see the underlying assumption there?

Ickle Magoo

Wicknight wrote: »

Again I don't think anyone is objecting to Watson feeling unease.

Read this thread again.

Wicknight wrote: »

I didn't make Rebecca Watson uncomfortable, nor did anyone else who has been commenting on this.

And as I said earlier, if you have no intention of and have never propositioned a lone woman you've followed from hotel bar to the lift, I don't know why you think her plea was aimed at you...

Wicknight wrote: »

Its not. Which is why spinning this out into a rant against men is getting so many people's backs up. Don't forget the original context of this even being mentioned was Watson telling the viewers of her blog 'Don't do that guys'.

As above...and "guys" is even a non-gender specific way of addressing a group of people...

Wicknight wrote: »

Imagine I'm on a bus at night with plenty of empty seats and a black man sits down beside me. This makes me mighty uncomfortable. Why is he sitting beside me, lots of other seats. I get up and hope off the bus.

I then post on Youtube telling black men Don't do this, it makes white people uncomfortable.

Did he sexually proposition you? While just the two of you? In a lift? At 4 am? I'm not sure what bringing race straw-men have to do with the scenario that RW was asking "guys" not to do...

Wicknight wrote: »

A few other bloggers then start saying that I was lucky to avoid a potential mugging and possibly even murder.

Anyone see the problem with either or both of those things?

I don't think other people grabbing RW initial feelings on the matter and running with them makes her feelings on what happened to her or her plea that it not happen again any less reasonable.

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you saying that Rebecca Watson has been raped a couple of times?

I would think it highly unusual if she hasn't been in at least one situation where her wariness has proven justified...

Wicknight wrote: »

Good point. So why exactly is Rebecca Watson blogging about this under the guise of telling men that they really shouldn't do this?

You can't see the underlying assumption there?

As far as I can see, she was asking the kind of guys who would do, to not to...and anything else is just a hysterical over-reaction. Go figure.

Zombrex

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And as I said earlier, if you have no intention of and have never propositioned a lone woman you've followed from hotel bar to the lift, I don't know why you think her plea was aimed at you...

Black men, please stop raping white women.


*obviously if you are a black man who has never raped a white women that comment was not intended for you.

I think her plea was aimed at me because it was aimed at me. I know it was aimed at me because she address it to me an all other men in the skeptic/atheist community.

In reality the person it should have been aimed at was the creepy guy in the lift.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Did he sexually proposition you? While just the two of you? In a lift? At 4 am? I'm not sure what bringing race straw-men have to do with the scenario that RW was asking "guys" not to do...

Should I ask black men not to do this as well? It did make me uncomfortable. Or am I not allowed get uncomfortable?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think other people grabbing RW initial feelings on the matter and running with them makes her feelings on what happened to her or her plea that it not happen again any less reasonable.

I can guarantee RW is not going to be in a lift with this guy again, so pleas that this not happen again seem some what redundant, don't they?

Unless...

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I would think it highly unusual if she hasn't been in at least one situation where her wariness has proven justified...

How does "wariness has proven justified" line up with "sometimes you get pushed around and a couple of times you get beaten up"

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

As far as I can see, she was asking the kind of guys who would do, to not to...and anything else is just a hysterical over-reaction. Go figure.

And when I say "black men don't do this" I'm just talking about the types of black men that would rape white women. Not all black men obviously.

Now, do you think that excuse would fly very far?

Taking isolated incidents, particularly blowing them out of proportion, and using them as an excuse to dictate and instruct and criticise large sections of society, well there are names for that and they normally end in -ism.

DeBunny

OK, I haven't read all 27 pages of this thread so maybe this has been pointed out already, but the "if its ok for a woman to proposition a man then the opposite is OK" analogy, is incorrect.

I'm white, male and straight but if I was constantly being propositioned by people within a particular community who were taller and stronger than me, I think I'd be well within my rights to ask them to stop.

Would you be comfortable with people, who were taller and stronger than you, constantly and tactlessly asking if they could penetrate you? Even if you were OK with it, then its pretty easy to understand why someone else wouldn't be. Don't be a dick - its as simple as.

Ickle Magoo

Wicknight wrote: »

Black men, please stop raping white women.


*obviously if you are a black man who has never raped a white women that comment was not intended for you.

I think her plea was aimed at me because it was aimed at me. I know it was aimed at me because she address it to me an all other men in the skeptic/atheist community.

In reality the person it should have been aimed at was the creepy guy in the lift.

Back to the race straw-man. Great.

So you would have been perfectly happy with her complaint and her plea if she'd qualified the statement that she was only referring to guys who would do that? I think it's missing the over-all point she's making and that it surely is ALREADY only aimed at those who would - otherwise why ask to refrain? Seems a bit pedantic for the sake of it, tbh.

Wicknight wrote: »

Should I ask black men not to do this as well? It did make me uncomfortable. Or am I not allowed get uncomfortable?

I think we're just getting bogged down with straw-men, red herrings and semantics again. If you were followed into a confined area by said man and they made an ambiguous sexual proposition, I'd be amazed if you weren't uncomfortable - and it wouldn't be the colour of the guys skin causing the discomfort. If RW had a black woman sit next to her on a bus and say nothing, there wouldn't have been a blog about it - so I'm struggling to see why you insist on comparing two completely different situations.

Wicknight wrote: »

I can guarantee RW is not going to be in a lift with this guy again, so pleas that this not happen again seem some what redundant, don't they?

Unless...

Well, this is where we get back to the oft and annoying propositions that many women have to put up with and that not all welcome...she may not be in a lift with THAT guy again but if her experiences are anything like mine, there is a seemingly endless stream of tactless and clueless opportunists who will unwittingly take their place.

Wicknight wrote: »

How does "wariness has proven justified" line up with "sometimes you get pushed around and a couple of times you get beaten up"

In my experience and that of women I've spoken with, having a had propositions quickly turn into a grope or intimidating situation is sadly not that unusual. I appreciate that's personal anecdote on my part - but it's also why her initial plea resonated with me.

Wicknight wrote: »

And when I say "black men don't do this" I'm just talking about the types of black men that would rape white women. Not all black men obviously.

Now, do you think that excuse would fly very far?

If as many black men thought that raping white women was a hysterical over-reaction as those who seem to think it's a woman's fault for feeling uneasy at being followed to a lift for ambiguous sexual propositioning at 4 am then it would probably fly a lot further.

Bob Cratchet

DeBunny wrote: »

OK, I haven't read all 27 pages of this thread so maybe this has been pointed out already, but the "if its ok for a woman to proposition a man then the opposite is OK" analogy, is incorrect.

I'm white, male and straight but if I was constantly being propositioned by people within a particular community who were taller and stronger than me, I think I'd be well within my rights to ask them to stop.

Would you be comfortable with people, who were taller and stronger than you, constantly and tactlessly asking if they could penetrate you? Even if you were OK with it, then its pretty easy to understand why someone else wouldn't be. Don't be a dick - its as simple as.

keep yer knickers on luv.