Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The war of atheism
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 241 of 526 (680483)
11-19-2012 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Modulous
11-19-2012 3:54 PM


Re: empathy does not require mind reading
Am I alone in being able to tell if a woman is not welcoming my advances? Am I alone in being able to tell that approaching a woman for the first time, in a context where there are no witnesses or easy escapes, is a bad idea?
It doesn't require the capacity to read minds. Just the ability to have empathy for women. I'm not claiming perfection in this regard, but it's hardly quantum electrodynamics to show a bit of restraint. To first talk to the woman while she's in the bar, engage in some flirting and using some empathy in reading the signals, if the two of you are getting along well, and flirting is being reciprocated, then maybe you could say 'Say, how do you fancy coming back to my room for some coffee?'. Not just jump to the not all that plausably deniable social etiquette for sexual propositioning. To avoid talking with her until she's alone and cornered just seems, when it's looked at from the woman's point of view, quite crass.
I think you may be the first man in the history of the world to know what a woman is thinking. lol Fact is, you probably don't.
Seriously, though. I think it's admirable for you and other men in general to be so empathetic as to consider my poor little female feelings and insecurities when approaching me, but we are all not RW. I prefer men to be honest and upfront about who they are. If you are a nice guy with great manners, be the great guy. If you are crass, be crass. If you are a fucking dick, then by all means, be a fucking dick. This way, I know who the keepers are and who are the ones to stay away from. If I get my poor little feelings hurt, I can handle it.
See? You can't win for trying.
Until someone discovers the cure for violence, women will always be wary of strange men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Modulous, posted 11-19-2012 3:54 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Modulous, posted 11-19-2012 5:04 PM roxrkool has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(2)
Message 242 of 526 (680488)
11-19-2012 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Modulous
11-19-2012 3:54 PM


Re: empathy does not require mind reading
Anybody that claims to find Rebecca Watson 'interesting', should surely know enough about her to infer that sexually propositioning her away from witnesses might make her feel uncomfortable.
The first time I heard of Ms Watson was on a podcast, and she made no comment regarding misogyny or propositions or discomfort away from witnesses. I found her interesting. I had, until this story came out, no way of knowing how she would react to a request for a talk over coffee regardless of circumstance.
I think you're assuming prior knowledge that would not necessarily be available to everyone in such a situation.
Paying attention to what Watson talks about, might have clued him in. It should have been clear to him that 'wanna come in for coffee?' is a common signal of sexual intent, and he certainly could reasonably know this, by participating in culture for a few years.
It's also an invitation to generally and non-sexually socialize. I've asked many people, including female acquaintances, to talk over some coffee without any interest in sex.
Give he could reasonably know that it advertises sexual intent, he might have reasonably concluded that someone who hasn't spoken with him is not going to feel 'complemented' when cornered in a close space out of sight of witnesses, but rather is going to be in the position of having no polite 'outs', and having to essentially deny a strange man from his sexual desires. And that, had he considered his impact carefully, he could reasonably conclude that could make her feel like little more than an object rather than as a person. Her concerns were ignored as if they were irrelevant.
I still fail to see how "elevator guy" could reasonably know, in advance, that she would feel objectified. Neither you nor crash have demonstrated that "elevator guy" knew or should have known in advance that Ms Watson would find such a proposition to be misogynistic or sexualizing or threatening.
And for those guys that weren't aware of how this might make someone feel - now they've been told. Some of them have not taken kindly to it, and are asserting that they have a right to proposition women as they see fit. Which they more or less do - but the feminists are perfectly entitled to criticise their behaviour too.
On this point you'll find no disagreement with me.
Am I alone in being able to tell if a woman is not welcoming my advances?
The elevator proposition was "elevator guy's" first advance; I'm sure he was perfectly capable of telling that Ms Watson found it unwelcome, but only after he had first made it. As I am incapable of predicting the future or reading minds, I have typically experienced anxiety when introducing myself to a woman to whom I am attracted for the first time...because I do not know how she will react to my advance until I make it. If I had knowledge of how a proposition would be accepted in advance, rejection anxiety would never have been an issue. I think it's reasonable to assume that "elevator guy" was similarly unable to predict future events, and that his ability to tell whether his advances were welcome was first predicated on him actually making the advance.
Am I alone in being able to tell that approaching a woman for the first time, in a context where there are no witnesses or easy escapes, is a bad idea?
Human beings do not always consider all of the variables that may affect others in a given predicament - frankly, there are too many. Often, the likely effect of an action in a given situation becomes painfully obvious after the fact, but was not even considered beforehand.
Way back when this thread started, I noted that, as a rather large man, I have been threatening to others in confined spaces simply by my presence, without saying a word.
I haven't always considered this effect before speaking to another elevator passenger. Granted, I've never asked anyone out while riding an elevator, but that seems more incidental to the fact that that, while I'm aware of the fact that I can be imposing unintentionally, I don't always think about that before acting or speaking.
Actions that appear obviously inadvisable after the fact are not always readily apparent beforehand.
It doesn't require the capacity to read minds. Just the ability to have empathy for women. I'm not claiming perfection in this regard, but it's hardly quantum electrodynamics to show a bit of restraint. To first talk to the woman while she's in the bar, engage in some flirting and using some empathy in reading the signals, if the two of you are getting along well, and flirting is being reciprocated, then maybe you could say 'Say, how do you fancy coming back to my room for some coffee?'. Not just jump to the not all that plausably deniable social etiquette for sexual propositioning. To avoid talking with her until she's alone and cornered just seems, when it's looked at from the woman's point of view, quite crass.
Perhaps Ms Watson was speaking to others, and the elevator encounter was the first time he was able to gain her attention long enough to ask whether she'd like to speak with him?
I can understand Ms Watson's discomfort, even as I find some of the arguments used to defend her perplexing. I can also understand, so some degree, several possible points of view for "elevator guy," and I find some of the statements made in his "defense" to be abhorrent.
The entire event, I think, makes something of a mountain out of a molehill - some understandable discomfort after an innocent but perhaps ill-advised encounter has become a battle in which opposing sides fling charges of misogyny or hate-filled epithets suggesting rape or utterly dismissing minor but real discomfort through comparisons to instances of far more severe misogyny.
I offend others from time to time. I am offended by others from time to time. Generally it's a minor thing, and nobody really cares; very few people actively seek to offend, but also very few of us make a big deal when we are slightly offended.
What seems strangest to me is that the mountain-making has occurred from the defenders of both sides...though neither Ms Watson nor "elevator guy" to my knowledge made a huge deal over the incident.
Ms Watson made a blog post explaining how she felt and that she found it ironic given her own recent public words, and others proceeded to DEFCON 1 on their behalf.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Modulous, posted 11-19-2012 3:54 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Modulous, posted 11-19-2012 5:41 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 243 of 526 (680498)
11-19-2012 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by roxrkool
11-19-2012 4:40 PM


Re: empathy does not require mind reading
I think you may be the first man in the history of the world to know what a woman is thinking. lol Fact is, you probably don't.
I'm pretty sure I didn't claim to know what a woman is thinking. Indeed, I seem to emphatically deny mind reading capacities. Just faulty empathy.
Seriously, though. I think it's admirable for you and other men in general to be so empathetic as to consider my poor little female feelings and insecurities when approaching me, but we are all not RW.
And not all women are you, either. I think its more moral to err on the side of caution. If its an environment that could make some women very uncomfortable, then don't do it. I mean, I'm very pleased that you are apparently confident enough to handle yourself against unwanted advances, and feel no more threatened by propositions in dark alleyways than you would at a dance. But I think its right to avoid cornering women when they're alone and letting them know you want to fuck them...
And it's not your poor little female feelings, I'm worried about. It's the perfectly justified human feelings. I'd be pretty nervous if some man much larger than me propositioned me in certain contexts, why would I want to potentially subject someone else to that fear?
As you say:
Until someone discovers the cure for violence, women will always be wary of strange men.
And its not actually all that difficult to ameliorate someone's perfectly justified fears by being sensitive about how and when they advertise their sexual interests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by roxrkool, posted 11-19-2012 4:40 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by roxrkool, posted 11-19-2012 7:43 PM Modulous has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 244 of 526 (680500)
11-19-2012 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by 1.61803
11-19-2012 2:58 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
I think Crash is playing devils advocate.
No, I'm flat-out serious. It's you people who expect me to believe that people talk to each other without having any notion of how their interlocutors are reacting that I can't believe are serious. I know an internet science forum is liable to attract its fair share of aspies, but come on, people aren't Vulcans or Martians, it's not impossible to talk to someone and figure out if you're insulting them or making them uncomfortable or if you've really got some game right now. It's just not common to lack that kind of situational awareness. Especially if you're the kind of person who is trying to proposition random people for casual sex, there's no way you could ever have been successful at that without being able to accurately judge the reactions you're causing in people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by 1.61803, posted 11-19-2012 2:58 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Rahvin, posted 11-19-2012 5:29 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 250 by roxrkool, posted 11-19-2012 9:45 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 256 by 1.61803, posted 11-20-2012 11:39 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 245 of 526 (680512)
11-19-2012 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by crashfrog
11-19-2012 5:06 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Especially if you're the kind of person who is trying to proposition random people for casual sex
Was that what "elevator guy" was doing?
Are you sure?

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2012 5:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2012 7:56 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 246 of 526 (680516)
11-19-2012 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Rahvin
11-19-2012 4:50 PM


Re: empathy does not require mind reading
The first time I heard of Ms Watson was on a podcast, and she made no comment regarding misogyny or propositions or discomfort away from witnesses. I found her interesting. I had, until this story came out, no way of knowing how she would react to a request for a talk over coffee regardless of circumstance.
I believe in the context, however, we're talking about a person who had given, I believe it was this talk where she talked about how she doesn't see sexual emails from strangers as a compliment (skip to about 8:15). She has apparently been talking with those who are basically interested in her for some hours before she went to bed. If you didn't realize that propositioning feminists in that kind of context, won't get you far, then now you do.
(Incidentally, I think it was this kind of hijacking of discussions (since she was so barely on topic its crazy) that got Dawkins annoyed enough to stick his oar in later on)
It's also an invitation to generally and non-sexually socialize. I've asked many people, including female acquaintances, to talk over some coffee without any interest in sex.
In your hotel room? Before you were acquainted with them? At 4am? In an elevator? On her way to bed? After she had spent time (knowing what I do of RW, probably some hours) about feminism and sexism?
I still fail to see how "elevator guy" could reasonably know, in advance, that she would feel objectified. Neither you nor crash have demonstrated that "elevator guy" knew or should have known in advance that Ms Watson would find such a proposition to be misogynistic or sexualizing or threatening.
He could reasonably have inferred that she might feel objectified when he ignored her stated desires in order to establish his sexual interest in her and essentially demand that she respond to it.
I mean, some guys are ignorant of this stuff, I get it. I think RW has educated at least some men on something.
The elevator proposition was "elevator guy's" first advance; I'm sure he was perfectly capable of telling that Ms Watson found it unwelcome, but only after he had first made it.
That's exactly the problem! His first advance should have been in the bar, and it probably shouldn't have been 'wanna get some coffee in my room'. Jumping straight to the 'final question' out of sight of witnesses in an enclosed space...that's the problem.
As I am incapable of predicting the future or reading minds, I have typically experienced anxiety when introducing myself to a woman to whom I am attracted for the first time...because I do not know how she will react to my advance until I make it. If I had knowledge of how a proposition would be accepted in advance, rejection anxiety would never have been an issue. I think it's reasonable to assume that "elevator guy" was similarly unable to predict future events, and that his ability to tell whether his advances were welcome was first predicated on him actually making the advance.
Do you approach many women where they are alone and immediately ask them back to your hotel room?
It doesn't require mind reading capabilities, it requires you gather some evidence that the proposition you might want to make 'come back to my hotel room', would be welcomed. Ask her how she is first, for example. Maybe exchange names. And some funny stories. You know, that kind of stuff.
Human beings do not always consider all of the variables that may affect others in a given predicament - frankly, there are too many...I haven't always considered this effect before speaking to another elevator passenger.
Right and maybe Elevator Guy simply had a d'oh moment. But the fact we make mistakes is no reason to avoid calling them mistakes. Elevator Guy made one.
Perhaps Ms Watson was speaking to others, and the elevator encounter was the first time he was able to gain her attention long enough to ask whether she'd like to speak with him?
At 4am, when she wants to go to bed. I'm afraid you should just concede that if you had a shot, you missed the opportunity. Maybe next time.
Or you know, you could pursue her and hope that your natural sexual charisma can win her over by asking her back to your hotel room when there's nobody around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Rahvin, posted 11-19-2012 4:50 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(1)
Message 247 of 526 (680529)
11-19-2012 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Modulous
11-19-2012 5:04 PM


Re: empathy does not require mind reading
I'm pretty sure I didn't claim to know what a woman is thinking. Indeed, I seem to emphatically deny mind reading capacities. Just faulty empathy.
As far as empathy goes, people aren't necessarily born with your level of empathy. It's another human attribute that ranges from non-existent (sociopath?) to well developed. Obviously, you and Crash have been gifted with high levels of empathy. Which I'm sure is as much of a curse as it is useful.
Can you teach people to be more empathetic? I really don't know the answer to this question. If you can't, then there will always be people who simply cannot treat people with the level of respect and understanding that they probably deserve. And so then what is the solution for this? Or are we at the mercy of evolution?
My son is also highly gifted in the empathy department. We noticed as soon as he started making friends. I hope this means he will be a wonderful man, husband, friend, and father.
I honestly think it's wonderful that you and Crash are arguing the positions that you are. The world would be a much safer place if more people (not just men) were like you two. At least as far as I can tell from this board... But the fact is, the world is not like that and not likely to be that way any time soon. That's why I prefer to see people for who they are rather than for who they think I want them to be.
And not all women are you, either.
I know that. My point was that you will offend someone no matter what you do. In my case, yeah, I don't appreciate to be patronized or thought of as some weak little lady who can't handle crass behavior. I can. But then I'm probably not your normal woman.
I think its more moral to err on the side of caution. If its an environment that could make some women very uncomfortable, then don't do it.
Reasonable.
I mean, I'm very pleased that you are apparently confident enough to handle yourself against unwanted advances, and feel no more threatened by propositions in dark alleyways than you would at a dance. But I think its right to avoid cornering women when they're alone and letting them know you want to fuck them...
I don't think that was a fair assessment. I never suggested any such thing. There are many things and situations that terrify me, and being in a dark alley alone with a strange person is one of them, but I don't look at it like it's everyone else's obligation to know what frightens me or get offended when they don't meet my needs. I think any reasonable person would be affraid in a dark alley at night. And that's really the only thing I feel is fair to ask of strangers.
And it's not your poor little female feelings, I'm worried about. It's the perfectly justified human feelings. I'd be pretty nervous if some man much larger than me propositioned me in certain contexts, why would I want to potentially subject someone else to that fear?
Again, that's reasonable. I expect most people will recognize such a situation as frightening and behave accordingly. And btw, I was playing devil's advocate there. Good manners and thoughtful behavior do not hurt my feelings or result in offense. Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Modulous, posted 11-19-2012 5:04 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Modulous, posted 11-20-2012 3:09 PM roxrkool has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 248 of 526 (680530)
11-19-2012 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Rahvin
11-19-2012 5:29 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Are you sure?
I guess I spoke too soon when I said that nobody had been stupid enough to try to defend his come-on on its face. Sheesh!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Rahvin, posted 11-19-2012 5:29 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by roxrkool, posted 11-19-2012 10:00 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 249 of 526 (680534)
11-19-2012 8:43 PM


Metrics
Well, fellas, as often happens when men are in conflict about the ladies, without hope of concord or compromise, there's only one thing to do:
Line up and measure.
Being post-60, at a time when the male empathy is known to, ah, be somewhat more retiring, I am of course exempt. Besides, it's cold here up north, and we all know what that does to the male empathy.
OK, rulers out. Man up.
May the biggest empathy win.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(2)
Message 250 of 526 (680540)
11-19-2012 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by crashfrog
11-19-2012 5:06 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
I think you're giving the average person too much credit. When it comes to matters of the heart or plain ol' sexual matters, people turn into blubbering idiots.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2012 5:06 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(1)
Message 251 of 526 (680541)
11-19-2012 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by crashfrog
11-19-2012 7:56 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
This reminds me...
Years ago, I was living out of a hotel for several months in a tiny buck water town. One evening, one of my workmates came over to my hotel room with a six-pack of beer. We were both married and just becoming friends. His wife was out of town and I was on my own. It never occurred to me until now that maybe that was his subtle way of showing me he was interested. Without being obvious about it because the appropriateness of that situation was questionable.
We hung out and watched several episodes of The Highlander before he went home.
Based on that, would it be reasonable to assume he was objectifying me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2012 7:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2012 7:48 AM roxrkool has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 252 of 526 (680575)
11-20-2012 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by crashfrog
11-19-2012 2:24 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Do you think lift-guy committed an act of misogyny?
Could you explain exactly what it is you think lift-guy did that qualifies as an act of misogyny?
Crash writes:
We're not talking about a situation where someone said "hello" and in doing so, insulted another.
But we are talking about a situation where inviting someone for coffee is being cited as an act of sexualisation and thus misogyny are we not?
Crash writes:
To know if she was sexualized? I don't follow. Surely she only has to know her own mind, her own reaction, to determine that.
No. The point being made to you by myself and numerous others is that it is perfectly possible to feel insulted or sexualised without anything that can be reasonably be considered insulting or sexualising having occurred.
Now this may or may not be the case in this whole lift-guy scenario but to say that because she felt sexualised lift-guy was necessarily and inarguably sexualising her is just plain silly isn't it?
So what exactly do you think lift-guy did that qualifies as an act of misogyny?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2012 2:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2012 7:47 AM Straggler has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 253 of 526 (680577)
11-20-2012 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Straggler
11-20-2012 7:12 AM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Could you explain exactly what it is you think lift-guy did that qualifies as an act of misogyny?
My views on it are irrelevant, but what transpired that led Watson to describe it as an act of sexualization has already been put forward. Nobody's called it "misogyny" but Roxrkool.
But we are talking about a situation where inviting someone for coffee is being cited as an act of sexualisation and thus misogyny are we not?
We're talking about a situation where a man was told that a woman wanted to go to her own room and sleep, and in response, he twice asked her to come to his room for "coffee."
Now, obviously our interpretation rests on what we think he meant by "coffee." It's worth noting, though, that the only coffee typically in a hotel room is that which you bring yourself as that produced by an in-room coffeemaker is not fit for human consumption, and he had brought no coffee. So there was no coffee in his hotel room. Thus, he invited her for "coffee" to a place where they both knew there would be no coffee.
So, we either must conclude that Elevator Guy suffers from profound mental disability bordering on justifying involuntary commitment in a facility, or that the invitation for "coffee" was a pretext for something else.
Honestly I would not have thought that anyone would have been so stupid as to try to defend this as an actual invitation to coffee but the lower end of human intelligence, I'm discovering, is truly boundless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Straggler, posted 11-20-2012 7:12 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Straggler, posted 11-20-2012 8:45 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 259 by Straggler, posted 11-20-2012 1:01 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 254 of 526 (680578)
11-20-2012 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by roxrkool
11-19-2012 10:00 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Based on that, would it be reasonable to assume he was objectifying me?
Is there some reason you can't apply the rubric we've already talked about?
Did you do what you wanted to do, or did you only do the things he wanted to do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by roxrkool, posted 11-19-2012 10:00 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by roxrkool, posted 11-20-2012 12:15 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 255 of 526 (680585)
11-20-2012 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by crashfrog
11-20-2012 7:47 AM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Do you think lift-guy committed an act of sexism?
Could you explain exactly what it is you think lift-guy did that qualifies as an act of sexism?
Crash writes:
Now, obviously our interpretation rests on what we think he meant by "coffee."
Exactly. It is his actions and intentions that matter. The fact that she felt sexualised is not the be-all-and-end-all here is it?
Crash previously writes:
To know if she was sexualized? I don't follow. Surely she only has to know her own mind, her own reaction, to determine that.
Surely you can now see that this is not the clinching argument you seemed to think it was?
Crash writes:
My views on it are irrelevant, but what transpired that led Watson to describe it as an act of sexualization has already been put forward. Nobody's called it "misogyny" but Roxrkool.
What is meant by "sexualisation" here? Does the term apply to any sexual advance or are there other criteria that need to be met? If so what are they?
Crash writes:
So, we either must conclude that Elevator Guy suffers from profound mental disability bordering on justifying involuntary commitment in a facility, or that the invitation for "coffee" was a pretext for something else.
Of course it was a pretext for potentially something else. Has anyone said otherwise?
Crash writes:
Honestly I would not have thought that anyone would have been so stupid as to try to defend this as an actual invitation to coffee but the lower end of human intelligence, I'm discovering, is truly boundless.
It was a sexual advance. I haven't seen anyone deny that. The question here is whether that in and of itself is some sort of act of gross misogyny/sexism and something that warrants all this attention or whether it is just a 'storm in a teacup'.
Crash writes:
My views on it are irrelevant...
Mine are no more or less relevant than yours but I'm going to share them anyway. Lift-guy was being a dick. Rebecca Watson was being a dick in making a big deal about lift-guy being a dick. We (the forum-osphere or whataver it is we are part of here) are being dicks for giving the whole incident the profile and attention that we are doing.
No great demonstration of sexism or misogyny or anything else worth commenting upon has occurred.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2012 7:47 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2012 4:12 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024