Summations Only

...no, we were talking about the words of a radical feminist blogger who is, so far as I know, unaffiliated in any way with the Atheist+ movement. I never claimed that the blogger had anything at all to do with Atheist+. The only point of the tangent was to cause you to abandon your argument from incredulity and acknowledge the existence of actual radical feminists (as a minority of feminists, for the love of sanity please do not start again with the strawman about painting all feminists in an extreme way so as to dismiss their reasonable arguments) by providing an example. I was never at any point talking about Atheist+ members, with the exception of mentioning Ms. Watson in nothing but positive terms and affirming that her discomfort was completely understandable and her treatment unconscionable.I think, crash, you've confused me with your other opponents here. In any case, I see no point in continuing the discussion with you here - you seem to not even be able to acknowledge that some feminists have extreme views regardless of what I or anyone else says, and it's not really on-topic here anyway, just a small tangent at least in my case.

..why? And, bizarrely, you chose to rebut that by just making things up that nobody had said. Thus actually proving my point - people make up things that feminists say in order to make there out to be this "radical feminism" and, by association, tar people who stand up to a sexist and misogynist culture.

No-one needs to make up "radical feminism", and if you've never come across any form of it personally, then I can only comment that some people seem to lead sheltered lives.There are many schools of feminism, as I keep telling you. Even within the sub-group of Separatist Feminists, there are many differences. There are feminists who would deny that you, crashfrog, could ever be a feminist and help advance the cause of feminism, although most female feminists would disagree with them. And the view that individual men cannot help the cause of women's equality is an example of what I mean by "ridiculous", because there are many obvious ways in which men could conceivably do that, so they are wrong.Another example is the view that it is essential to end marriage in order to achieve equality. Obviously wrong, because marriages in which the partners are economically independent and equal under law and in practice can clearly exist. So, the concept of marriage in itself does not contradict equality.But that (no marriage) is a particular idea of some feminists. It is not essential feminism, but is a form feminism + something else. Feminism+, like atheism+.Which can lead us to the subject of the organized atheist movement, feminism, and the divided opinions.Two people agreeing to have casual sex, and to use each other's bodies as sex objects is not a problem for feminism, as it is not in contradiction with gender equality. In order for the above to happen, suggestions have to be communicated between individuals, and propositions have to be made.None of the above is a problem for feminism or, of course, atheism. Suggestions that people should not make propositions that could lead to casual sex would certainly go down well at meetings of Christian conservatives, but atheists have no such restrictions and no taboos on fornication with informed consent, so it's not really surprising that the attempt to herd cats failed, and a break off movement was established. I wonder how many sheep the shepherds will pull.But important to the discussion here, it is feminism + that's being proposed in atheism+, not just broad feminism.

There are many schools of everything. The internet is a kind of random idea generator. You can find advocacy for any conceivable viewpoint. So what? The point remains that you, Rahvin, and Tangle are all attempting to discredit Watson and the larger project of Atheism+ via "guilt-by-association" to a completely anonymous "radical feminism", the worst excesses of which as presented are simply statements you've invented. Summaries of what they "supposedly" believe. Interpretations of what they "really" mean when they say something else.It's amazing. You think you can sit there and say "well, I know that radical feminists believe that all PIV intercourse is the same as rape" and you actually think that's evidence that there are radical feminists who believe that all PIV intercourse is the same as rape! Oh, well, you said it so clearly the feminists must be wrong. I can't imagine how there could be anyone who has not yet acquiesced to your instantly-convincing argument by personal assertion. It's not a problem for Rebecca Watson, either. But the situation you describe was not what she faced. She was not one of two people who agreed to have casual sex. She was someone to whom an unwanted offer was made that resulted in her feeling uncomfortable. And when her discomfort was the subject of nothing more than a brief aside, she was subject to such an enormous torrent of sexualized violence and abuse from the supposedly pro-consenting-adults community that it revealed a major problem with the atheist community's treatment of women as little more than arm candy, as opposed to equal partners and fellow travelers with legitimate things to say. And the response by the community to this problem being revealed was to demonize Watson for being the one to pull back the curtain. It was gross and disgusting and you should be deeply personally ashamed of your efforts to defend that demonization with such dishonest tactics as you have used.

There were many schools of feminism long before the internet existed. People don't have to agree with you or Rebecca Watson that people making propositions to other people is anti-feminist or misogynist or sexist. It is, as I've pointed out, perfectly compatible with gender equality. I posted a long list of Dworkin "statements" which I certainly didn't invent, and you avoided replying to that post. But I think you're still missing the point.I keep explaining that there are many different schools of feminism, and I've pointed out that Rebecca Watson and Andrea Dworkin are different feminists. However, I'm certainly claiming that there is some form of irrational feminism present in the atheist/skeptic conference disputes. Rebecca Watson is not "tainted by association" with the nutty forms of feminism which she does not subscribe to, but as with the other nutty forms, the unreasonable beliefs in her particular cult can be identified by the actions of the believers.As I think you agree now, people propositioning other people at atheist conferences is not, in itself, incompatible with gender equality, so those who are trying to stop such behaviour, and therefore, inevitably, to stop strangers meeting at these conferences and having sex, are adding personal ideological faith to their feminism. When others, like Dawkins, disagree with the cult additions, they are attacked as misogynist, sexist etc., completely without reason, because their views are actually compatible with gender equality. The argument was based on observation and experience of equal marriages, observations that most adults here should have made by now. As I said in the last post, some people seem to have led sheltered lives, and it's hardly my fault that you're choosing to argue with others about things of which you seem to have very limited experience. Of course she wasn't, and you've missed the point of my example, which was that approval of the situation I described does not constitute misogyny or sexism. Such behaviour is compatible with equality. And in order for that situation to arise between strangers, suggestions/propositions that relate to it must happen. Yes, and we've all been in that situation (except, perhaps, those who have led very sheltered lives). I'd give you a history of some of mine, but you seem very skeptical of anecdotes unless they are Rebecca's. Her aside about the "ironic" proposition was fine, and very relevant to her general point, which was that such propositions shouldn't be made. That's the restriction she was trying to impose on these atheist/skeptic conferences, and that was the political fight she lost. And she was perfectly prepared to attack those women who immediately disagreed with her, and to attack the likes of Dawkins who, quite reasonably, dismissed the example given in her aside as a non-incident. All you're showing here is some kind ideological commitment to Rebecca Watson's point of view, and that you can completely ignore the fact that the abuse has been flying both ways.As for handing out personal moral advice to me or roxrcool or anyone else here, I'm afraid you're far too obviously wet behind behind the ears for us to take you seriously. Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

See, this is what I'm talking about - you're ascribing to your opponents positions that they don't hold. Where did Rebecca Watson say that making propositions is anti-feminist, misogynistic, or sexist? Where did I? Be specific. I didn't address them in a reply to you, but I showed how Dworkin had been misquoted and taken out of context. Ok, then present such an observation. And no one, including Watson, has asserted that it does. The problem is that you can't seem to distinguish between criticism of two parties having consensual casual sex, and criticism of individuals making uncomfortable propositions without the consent of their target.That's two different things, but you and Watson's other detractors have conflated her criticism of the latter with criticisms of the former that she did not make. That's why I accused you of attacking Watson based on the views of a strawman-feminist; it's exactly what you keep doing, over and over again. Now you're even doing it to me. Yes! Why on Earth should anyone make a nonconsensual proposition that makes another person uncomfortable? Why on Earth is that not such an immediately obvious Thing to Not Do? And why on Earth should the people who say "hey, don't do that" be subject to the enormous campaign, of which you are a part, to quell and quash any opprobrium being leveled against the people making such propositions? Has it? Name even a single person whom Rebecca Watson has said should be raped to death. Name one.

So, in your opinion, "raped to death" is the ONLY possible abuse that people can use. There is no other form of abuse: just that one; just "raped to death". Anything else does not constitute abuse./facepalm

No, in my opinion saying "you're a fucking slut who ought to be raped to death, maybe I'll meet you in some dark alley and do it" is abuse, but saying "you've made an argument, but you're wrong" is not. And to say that "abuse has been flying both ways" is to make a false equivalence when one side is saying the former and the other side is saying the latter.I'm not inclined to accept the testimony of liars that Watson has been abusing anybody. I've already detailed how people have ascribed to Watson things that she did not actually say. This is, most likely, another example of it. But, hey. Prove me wrong. Who did Watson say should be raped to death? Anybody?

So, in your opinion, "raped to death" is the ONLY possible abuse that people can use. There is no other form of abuse: just that one; just "raped to death". Anything else does not constitute abuse./facepalm

Lying about me twice doesn't make it true.

Hey dude.Do you fancy coming back to my place for a coffee?

I have already shown you. In her elevatorgate video she says that elevatorguy sexualized her [by propositioning her]. And by definition, sexual Objectification IS one of the basic manifestations of misogyny. Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

So she didn't actually say it - you're interpreting it that way.Doesn't that make you the "radical feminist", actually? Just a thought.

If repeating your posts is "lying", then the problem lies with you.

And for the second time:By definition, sexual objectification IS one of the basic manifestations of misogyny.Are you under the impression that RW doesn't accept the definition of misogyny as defined by Feminist Theory?