Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

Atheism, secularism & freethought etc.

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#101  Postby MattHunX » Jul 06, 2011 4:50 pm

Erin wrote:Given what she relayed as his opening line (and I'm citing from memory, because I can't watch the video at work. If I get this wrong, I apologize and will correct it) -- "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you really fascinating" -- implied that he did. And face it, if he had no idea who she was and didn't attend her speech and wasn't privy to her conversation at the bar, that's a very strange way to start a conversation.


Good point. But, then...if he had listened to her, and knew what she was concerned with, then the guy's behavior would seem to suggest that he approached her in the manner in which he did, with the proposition with which he did, knowing full well her response, and while that still wouldn't have made his intention crystal clear, he could be considered a total jerk. Maybe it was an inconsiderate, sick joke on his part, that he didn't clarify nor apologize for. Still a jerk.

Erin wrote:While I understand what you're saying, what I'm trying to point out is that she didn't know his intentions at the time, and thus was uncomfortable and justified in feeling that way. I feel as if you're saying that since everything turned out fine, she didn't have a valid complaint. It's an awkard-at-best and threatening-at-worst way to approach a woman socially, and she had every right to point it out as an example of what not to do. And I obviously agree with her.

On the other-hand, he also mentioned inviting her up to his room for coffee. Now, I'm not sure how popular this whole "coffee=sex" substitution is, but surely she suspected as much, otherwise, if they guy really just wanted a coffee with her (doubtful) she really had nothing to be concerned about, not immediately, anyway. I'm only assuming that she knew where the guy was going with the whole thing, ultimately, in which case, her uncomfortableness and worry was justified, if still a bit much.

Erin wrote:Why not? How can we ever expect to change anyone's behavior without calling attention to it?

I don't say she shouldn't call attention to it, but it likely won't have the desired affect, and not on short notice, at any rate. This kind of behavior has become practically mundane in western society, and a singe woman getting slightly vocal about it, isn't going to sway over-confident, womanizing, alpha-male types.

Erin wrote:How would you suggest we deal with it, then?


That, too, is going to be a long process and would require amongst other things a lot more women getting vocal about it. But, as I said if every woman who was approached in such manner, in any place and time, would complain than it would be just ridiculous and men would only get indignant and snap back. What also needs to be done, I think, is the teaching of more social-skills in classes, or groups outside normal school curriculum. Not the obnoxious and ridiculous table-manner etiquette on tv, and whatnot, but just social-skills. I suppose there are programs, groups of the sort already, but they should pay more attention to those.

Beyond that, I don't know what else to suggest.
User avatar
MattHunX
 
Posts: 10947

Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#102  Postby mmmcheezy » Jul 06, 2011 4:56 pm

http://www.rantingnraging.tumblr.com

I'm not larger than life, I'm not taller than trees
User avatar
mmmcheezy
RS Donator
 
Posts: 4171
Age: 36
Female

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#103  Postby MattHunX » Jul 06, 2011 5:09 pm


Read the first two anecdotes, with the car and the pedestrian.

The second one was really odd. I mean, who in their right mind would say such things to complete stranger? I'm not saying the guy was mentally unstable, but he sure was a few fries short of a happy meal considering manners (and in public). :crazy:

The first one was a lot worse though, considering the situation, in traffic.

Then again, it's become mundane. It's almost expected, really. :nono:
User avatar
MattHunX
 
Posts: 10947

Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#104  Postby mmmcheezy » Jul 06, 2011 5:21 pm

but does that help you understand how a man simply asking you to join him for coffee [when you're alone, in an elevator, at 4 am] can make a woman uncomfortable? it's all down to this culture we have, and it's not just in the usa, either.

EDIT: to further clarify, most women experience situations like this several times in their life. most of them wind up being fairly innocent, but if you experience even one pushy man, you're constantly on alert for it to happen again.
http://www.rantingnraging.tumblr.com

I'm not larger than life, I'm not taller than trees
User avatar
mmmcheezy
RS Donator
 
Posts: 4171
Age: 36
Female

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#105  Postby Dracena » Jul 06, 2011 5:42 pm

Erin wrote:Before I post anything, I would just like to clarify that I am assuming a 4 a.m. offer to go back to this guy's hotel room meant he was asking her to have sex with him. It may well have been an innocent offer for talk and coffee, but it didn't sound like one to me, and it seems like most people here are assuming the same.

MattHunX wrote:
What I am telling her, is that she should realize that there are lots of guys and gals out there with such personalities and obvious lack of inhibitions, and perhaps lack of social-skills (even though it should be proportional, really), who will act this way, and that she will not be able to help but react in the same fashion as she did in this particular situation, because that's how she is. I cannot change that.


How is, "Uh, guys? Don't do that" an overreaction?

And I show empathy for those who deserve it. She deserves a minimal amount. If the man had been forceful in any way, she'd have more, and her argument would be valid, for me.


Why does the man have to be foreceful in any way for her to have an issue with his behavior? Let's review:

- She had been at a hotel bar after previously speaking at a conference in which she mentioned getting a lot of advances from men at atheist conventions. She also spoke about how she didn't like this.
- The man presumably heard her speak at the conference. Even if he didn't, he was in the bar listening to her conversations with colleagues. He obviously didn't speak to her the entire time at the bar, otherwise she wouldn't have referred to him as a stranger. He could have approached her at any time in this public setting.
- He waited until she said she was exhausted and going to bed, followed her into an elevator, and propositioned her there. His opening line was, "Don't take this the wrong way," indicating he knew what he was about to say was inappropriate. Kind of like when someone opens a sentence with "No offense, but..." and proceeds to be a dick.
- She's alone at 4 a.m., followed into a confined space by a man she doesn't know, and asked to come back to his room for sex when he already knew she wouldn't be receptive to his advances.

Quite frankly, that is is creepy.

This isn't a public place where she can just walk away or ignore him and go talk to her friends. Matt, I really can't describe how intidimating it can be to be in a confined space with a man who can overpower you. Add in the fact that he asks for sex, and this will set off alarm bells in a woman's head. She can press the button and get off at the next floor, but has no guarantee he won't follow her. If she gets off at her own floor, she has no guarantee he won't follow her to her room. The very nature of an elevator means she doesn't have multiple exits; she can't get out when she wants without him knowing about it, and when she does get off, she has to outrun him because there's only one way to go. Bottom line: she has no idea if his intentions are good or bad. But if they ARE bad, she is in the most vulnerable position possible.

She didn't whine or cry about it. She didn't call him a rapist. She didn't ask anyone to feel sorry for her. She simply said it made her uncomfortable (and justifiably so) and asked men not to act that way (a reasonable request), in a vlog that wasn't even about that story in the first place. She threw it in as a humorous aside about how clueless that guy was. Then everybody flew off the handle.

Now, let's look at muslim-women, starving children...etc., they have my empathy, a lot of it. This skepchick person, deserves little.


She never compared her plight to that of Muslim women or starving children. That was Dawkins, in his ridiculous, over-the-top response. She certainly wasn't asking for that kind of consideration.

She should get a reality a check and perhaps propose a realistic solution to the Jerk Problem.


I think "don't follow a strange woman alone into an elevator at 4 a.m. and proposition her for sex" is pretty clear enough.


:this: And with Fallible and others in the thread who've tried to explain just how creepy it can be to be in a situation like that and just how ridiculous R.D.'s reaction is.
User avatar
Dracena
 
Posts: 2386
Age: 49
Female

Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#106  Postby HughMcB » Jul 06, 2011 6:00 pm

Animavore wrote:And I'm not with PZ here at all.

However, the existence of greater crimes does not excuse lesser crimes, and no one has even tried to equate this incident to any of the horrors above. What these situations demand is an appropriate level of response: a man who beats a woman to death has clearly committed an immensely greater crime than a man who harrasses a woman in an elevator; let us fit the punishment to the crime. Islamic injustice demands a worldwide campaign of condemnation of the excesses and inhumanity of that religion.

Lesser crime? The guy in the elevator committed no crime. Unless making a tit of yourself is now a crime?

:this:

He should of just had a little more consideration though.
"So we're just done with phrasing?"
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19113
Age: 39
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#107  Postby HughMcB » Jul 06, 2011 6:09 pm

Animavore wrote:I know I've had girls I didn't want to be with ask me. It's awkward and saying 'no' knowing you can potentially hurt the person's feelings or, in some cases, madden them is quite disconcerting.

I've gotten at least half a dozen slaps in the face for merely saying "sorry I'm just not interested", along with taunts of "you just think you're the shit don't ya!" and on a couple of occasions, a drink in my face. :lol:

I'd give my left arm to have a woman merely walk off quietly with their tail between their legs. :dopey:

But I do agree that the physical presence of a male can be more ominous.

Paul G wrote:Should woman who intimidate men modify their behaviour?

Intimidate? I've been psychically assaulted for literally doing fuck all.
"So we're just done with phrasing?"
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19113
Age: 39
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#108  Postby Dracena » Jul 06, 2011 6:10 pm

HughMcB wrote:
Animavore wrote:And I'm not with PZ here at all.

However, the existence of greater crimes does not excuse lesser crimes, and no one has even tried to equate this incident to any of the horrors above. What these situations demand is an appropriate level of response: a man who beats a woman to death has clearly committed an immensely greater crime than a man who harrasses a woman in an elevator; let us fit the punishment to the crime. Islamic injustice demands a worldwide campaign of condemnation of the excesses and inhumanity of that religion.

Lesser crime? The guy in the elevator committed no crime. Unless making a tit of yourself is now a crime?

:this:

He should of just had a little more consideration though.


I think PZ with "lesser crimes" meant "faux pais" (someone else here on already pointed that out, I'm just parroting).
User avatar
Dracena
 
Posts: 2386
Age: 49
Female

Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#109  Postby HughMcB » Jul 06, 2011 6:22 pm

Erin wrote:I think "don't follow a strange woman alone into an elevator at 4 a.m. and proposition her for sex" is pretty clear enough.

Sorry I don't actually disagree with what this woman is saying, but I fucking do disagree with this statement of yours.

Firstly, what makes you think he "followed her"? Was he meant to wait for another elevator given that he shouldn't use the same as her. Should everyone after a certain hour use a separate lift? If so, when is the cut off hour? 3.30? 3.45?

Secondly, where did he "proposition her for sex"? I must of missed that part too.
"So we're just done with phrasing?"
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19113
Age: 39
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#110  Postby HughMcB » Jul 06, 2011 6:24 pm

rJD wrote:And still, regardless of the motivations or excuses we can speculate about 'Elevator Guy', or whether Watson was justified in feeling uneasy, none of this changes the fact that Dawkins' response was out of proportion to Watson's measured complaint and reasonable request; it was mocking, nasty and totally unnecessary.

Oh I agree 100%, Prof. D has let himself down, yet again.
"So we're just done with phrasing?"
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19113
Age: 39
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#111  Postby HughMcB » Jul 06, 2011 6:24 pm

mmmcheezy wrote:how far does it have to go before a woman is "overreacting" by simply asking a man to STOP IT? because i've been propositioned MUCH MORE EXPLICITLY [in words that i won't say here or fear of breaking the fua] not just in bars, but also in malls. and once on campus in the middle of the afternoon. when i expressed my disgust with these guys, they reacted pretty similarly. "oh you're overreacting!" "it's a ccompliment!" "i wish strangers complimented me like that!"

I don't really see how this is relevant to the yt vid. Unless that is someone asked you for coffee in an elevator? I don't think anyone would contest that sexually explicit language is not acceptable in such situation.

I wouldn't like to deal with the crap women put up with, it does happen to men too however. Of course this doesn't excuse either, but I guess both are equally as sexist(?). :dunno:
"So we're just done with phrasing?"
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19113
Age: 39
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#112  Postby mmmcheezy » Jul 06, 2011 6:29 pm

HughMcB wrote:
mmmcheezy wrote:how far does it have to go before a woman is "overreacting" by simply asking a man to STOP IT? because i've been propositioned MUCH MORE EXPLICITLY [in words that i won't say here or fear of breaking the fua] not just in bars, but also in malls. and once on campus in the middle of the afternoon. when i expressed my disgust with these guys, they reacted pretty similarly. "oh you're overreacting!" "it's a ccompliment!" "i wish strangers complimented me like that!"

I don't really see how this is relevant to the yt vid. Unless that is someone asked you for coffee in an elevator?

my point [which i realize was not very clear initially, forgive me, i have the flu and i'm feverish], was that if watson's situation wasn't enough to make someone uncomfortable and ask the man to stop, what is? where is this line drawn?
sorry if my points still aren't clear, everything i say makes sense in my head and then sounds crazy when i read over it later. i should probably pack it in, hahaha.
http://www.rantingnraging.tumblr.com

I'm not larger than life, I'm not taller than trees
User avatar
mmmcheezy
RS Donator
 
Posts: 4171
Age: 36
Female

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#113  Postby HughMcB » Jul 06, 2011 6:34 pm

I hope you feel better. :thumbup:

No I don't begrudge this women her justifiable stance to ask people not to do that. I just think it's all pretty innocent, I don't think any malice was intended and if anything this guy was probably just a bit slow witted to realise that it would be creepy.

Usually it's how you broach a situation that makes it more lighthearted. I chatted up a woman wearing only a bathrobe in an elevator by just using a bit of homour and being chatty, not creepy or pushy. She asked me for coffee. :grin:
"So we're just done with phrasing?"
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19113
Age: 39
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#114  Postby Doubtdispelled » Jul 06, 2011 6:55 pm

HughMcB wrote:Intimidate? I've been psychically assaulted for literally doing fuck all.

Are you really sure you mean that, Hugh? :)

MattHunX wrote:and would require amongst other things a lot more women getting vocal about it

I think you just might be 'getting it', Matt. But then of course, it would also require a lot of people to stop saying 'you're overreacting.....'
God's hand might have shaken just a bit when he was finishing off the supposed masterwork of his creative empire.. - Stephen King
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11848

Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#115  Postby MattHunX » Jul 06, 2011 7:04 pm

Doubtdispelled wrote:
HughMcB wrote:Intimidate? I've been psychically assaulted for literally doing fuck all.

Are you really sure you mean that, Hugh? :)

MattHunX wrote:and would require amongst other things a lot more women getting vocal about it

I think you just might be 'getting it', Matt. But then of course, it would also require a lot of people to stop saying 'you're overreacting.....'

:snooty: :)
User avatar
MattHunX
 
Posts: 10947

Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#116  Postby orpheus » Jul 06, 2011 7:11 pm

Double post; never mind.
Last edited by orpheus on Jul 06, 2011 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“A way a lone a last a loved a long the”

—James Joyce
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 7274
Age: 59
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#117  Postby orpheus » Jul 06, 2011 7:13 pm

Charlou wrote:
Rachel Bronwyn wrote:It certainly wasn't a crime. It made someone feel uncomfortable though and not unreasonably so. Telling someone "Worse shit happens so just shut up about it" when something so simple to remedy is making them uncomfortable is completely unfair. No one thinks Elevator Guy was going to rape someone. No one wants to see Elevator Guy thrown in jail. They just want him (and everyone) to know that what he did makes a lot of people uncomfortable and it would be preferable if he didn't repeat it.

Why is asking for such a simple courtesy a big deal? Why is it the job of the women who are being made to feel uncomfortable by these advances to just get over them?

It's incredibly frustrating being a female and trying to participate in this "community" when sexism is so prevalent and, instead of listening, what seems like the majority of men would rather band together in their defensiveness and accuse women of being unreasonable. It's hurtful. It divides the community.

What's particularly hilarious is a lot of men complain about there being too few women present at conventions. If you're going to tell them their feelings are illegitimate as oppsed to modifying a minor behaviour to make them feel more welcome, they're not going to show up or if they do, they'll not return.


She's coming from a presumption of sexualisation, therefore fear, just because he ("elevator guy") is male, so isn't the sexism on her part?

And "community" ... what does that mean in this context?


Excellent point.

Nice to see you, Charlou! It's been a long time. :cheers:
“A way a lone a last a loved a long the”

—James Joyce
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 7274
Age: 59
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#118  Postby HughMcB » Jul 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Doubtdispelled wrote:
HughMcB wrote:Intimidate? I've been psychically assaulted for literally doing fuck all.

Are you really sure you mean that, Hugh? :)

Actually yes, if being hit in the face counts as physical assault (which I'm pretty sure it does) and if politely saying "sorry I'm not interested" is counted as doing fuck all. In that case my statement is wholly correct. On more than one occasion.
"So we're just done with phrasing?"
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19113
Age: 39
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#119  Postby MattHunX » Jul 06, 2011 7:39 pm

HughMcB wrote:
Doubtdispelled wrote:
HughMcB wrote:Intimidate? I've been psychically assaulted for literally doing fuck all.

Are you really sure you mean that, Hugh? :)

Actually yes, if being hit in the face counts as physical assault (which I'm pretty sure it does) and if politely saying "sorry I'm not interested" is counted as doing fuck all. In that case my statement is wholly correct. On more than one occasion.

And people wonder why I have no interest in pursuing relationships. :nono: Well, there is one more reason. Thanks, Hugh! :cheers:
User avatar
MattHunX
 
Posts: 10947

Print view this post

Re: Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)

#120  Postby HughMcB » Jul 06, 2011 7:40 pm

I wouldn't exactly call that a relationship. More being hit on, followed by being hit on. :lol:
"So we're just done with phrasing?"
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19113
Age: 39
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Nontheism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest