Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The war of atheism
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 256 of 526 (680629)
11-20-2012 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by crashfrog
11-19-2012 5:06 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Hi Crash,
The whole thing may simply be a exercise in schadenfreude in the case of Rebecca Watson. Who knows?

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

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


Message 257 of 526 (680647)
11-20-2012 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by crashfrog
11-20-2012 7:48 AM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Is there some reason you can't apply the rubric we've already talked about?
Is there some reason you have to be so fucking condescending?
And the fact that I have no clue what "rubric" means, probably not.
Did you do what you wanted to do, or did you only do the things he wanted to do?
I couldn't read his mind, so I have no idea if we did what he wanted. If he wanted to drink beer and watch TV, then we did what he wanted.
Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2012 7:48 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2012 4:17 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 526 (680649)
11-20-2012 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by roxrkool
11-18-2012 8:05 PM


Come on, Crash. You need to actually comprehend what people are writing instead of what you think people are writing.
For a window into his thought process, check out Message 127. He thinks that he "gets" to spin people's posts as some sort of legitimate debating strategy, or something.
Discussing anything with you is like entering Bizarro world.
Indeed. You're, like, the fifth person I've seen on here directly complaining about this (counting me).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by roxrkool, posted 11-18-2012 8:05 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2012 4:05 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 259 of 526 (680660)
11-20-2012 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by crashfrog
11-20-2012 7:47 AM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Crash writes:
Nobody's called it "misogyny" but Roxrkool.
I've been reading a bit more about this whole debacle and it seems that the whole thing really kicked off not after the original RW blog post but after a speech she gave at another conference where she repeats the elevator story and examines some of the initial internet reaction to it. Specifically the reaction of Stef McGraw who she specifically names and describes as engaging in "pretty standard parroting of misogynistic thought".
Here is a rather lengthy transcript of the Rebecca Watson talk in question and the relevant (but still lengthy) part most relevant here: Link
quote:
And what happened after this talk is that, I was at the pub, as one does in Dublin, the hotel bar, actually, where I was staying, with a big group of skeptics, having a -- and atheists, you know -- having a really good conversation. So good that it went on until 4 in the morning. Actually it went on much longer than that, but at 4 in the morning I said, "You know what, guys? Big day tomorrow, I'm turning in, I'm exhausted, I'm going to bed. Have a good night." And I got up and I left the table, and i walked toward the elevator, and a man sort of broke away from the group -- a man who I had never spoken to before -- came over to me, and got on the elevator with me, and said, "Don't take this the wrong way," which immediately, it's kind of like when one of your friends goes, "I'm not a racist, but," you know that whatever's about to come, you're not going to like. "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you really interesting, and I'm wondering if you'd like to go back to my hotel room for some coffee." Which is odd, because the bar was open, and serving coffee -- some people had it down there -- and I had already said that I was exhausted and going to bed. I am not one -- I consider myself a sort of bad mamma-jamma, if you will -- and I'm not one to get easily intimidated. But, in this case -- alone, in an elevator in a foreign country at 4 in the morning, after I'd been drinking -- a man who is quite obviously propositioning me, made me extremely uncomfortable. I declined, and I hopped off the elevator at the next floor, and went to bed.
So I mentioned this story on YouTube, and I used it as an example of what men should strive not to do. You know, if you want to make women feel comfortable at your conferences, then don't proposition them. Don't let that be the first thing out of your mouth. Don't do it in a secluded place, at 4 in the morning, when they've already expressed the desire to go to bed alone. I thought it was fairly clear. However, there were some interesting responses, like this, calling me "an annoying cunt." This person writes: "I can't believe that someone (gasp) would talk with you on an elevator. How dare a man talk with you alone. You sound like the fundamental Muslims that you hate, due to their positions on women. Congratulations." So, I mean, you know, in this guy's defense, I did suggest that at conferences, men and women cease all communication. I think it's a terrible idea that they ever talk to one another, and I suggested that conferences give out gimp masks, to be sure that no one is engaging in conversation. Gimp masks maybe send the wrong message, maybe not the best idea. No, I didn't suggest any of that. And I'm certainly not against communication, I'm not against flirting, anything like that, but this commenter completely missed the point, and he or she is not the only one.
There's another comment I found on a blog, from actually one of your own, and I wanted to use it as an example, not to embarrass this person, but to point out that we have a serious problem when young women are this ignorant about feminism. So let me read it to you. This is from the UNI Freethought blog. Stef McGraw, she posts a transcript of the story I just told you, the elevator story, and she writes: "My concern is that she takes issue with a man showing interest in her. What's wrong with that? How on earth does that justify him as creepy? Are we not sexual beings? Let's review. It's not as if he touched her, or made an unsolicited sexual comment. He merely asked if she'd like to come back to his room. She easily could have said, and I'm assuming did say, 'No thanks, I'm tired, and would like to go to my room to sleep.'"
So there are many things wrong with this paragraph. I won't really go into them all. I'll mention that asking someone back to your hotel room, at 4 in the morning, who you've never spoken to, is the definition of unsolicited sexual comment. And, in the transcript that Stef posted, she conveniently edited it to begin after I told everyone at the bar that I was exhausted and going back to my room. Kind of an important point, in which I state exactly what my desire is. Because later, this man in the elevator is specifically trying to talk me out of doing that. So I did actually make it quite clear that I was tired, and going to my room to sleep.
But the real problem is actually in the first sentence, and it's sort of the same problem that the other commenter has: "My concern is that she takes issue with a man showing interest in her." This is, unfortunately, a pretty standard parroting of misogynistic thought. And it's not new, it's something that feminists have been dealing with for ages. In fact, it's Feminism 101. In fact, it's covered on a blog called "Feminism 101," which you should definitely check out, because it's great. They go over a lot of concepts that may be new to many of you.
But in this case, what we're talking about is the difference between sexual interest, sexual attraction, versus sexual objectification. Objectification has a few things about it that separate it from interest. For instance, focusing on the physical aspects of a person; ignoring their individuality, and their stated desires (for instance, my desire to go to sleep, my desire to not be hit on, which is all I had been talking about all day); and also a disinterest in how your actions will impact the "object" in question. And that's a really serious point, that I think you all should consider, especially if you want to encourage more women to join your groups.
Because there are people in this audience right now who believe this: that a woman's reasonable expectation to feel safe from sexual objectification and assault at skeptic and atheist events is outweighed by a man's right to sexually objectify her. That's basically what these people have been telling me, and it's not true. [one person applauds] Thank you, Melody. You know, since starting Skepchick, I've heard from a lot of women who don't attend events like this because of those of you who have this attitude. They're tired of being objectified, and some of them have actually been raped; quite a number of them have been raped, or otherwise sexually assaulted. And situations like the one I was in, in an elevator, would have triggered a panic attack. They're scared, because they know that you won't stand up for them. And if they stand up for themselves, you're going to laugh them back down. And that's why they're not coming out to these events.
So women aren't attending atheist/skeptic conferences because they are scared of being objectified and raped.
Without commenting on whether this is true or not it does seem that RW first raised "misogynistic thought" and rape as issues in the context of this elevator story.

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 264 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2012 4:24 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 260 of 526 (680676)
11-20-2012 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by roxrkool
11-19-2012 7:43 PM


Re: empathy does not require mind reading
As far as empathy goes, people aren't necessarily born with your level of empathy.
My increasing sense of empathy is a work in progress, I don't claim to have been born with it - though I would agree I was born with a certain capacity for empathy, but I'm willing to concede I'm actually probably below average in natural empathy all round (I find myself working very hard when empathy might be required). When I was in my late teens I was more frequently a dick to women than I am now. That's why I don't think these men are uneducatable. It's just their education of attracting sexual partners, by culture, has often largely consisted of something like 'persist and be pseudo-aggressive'.
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.
It comes with a side order of guilt
Can you teach people to be more empathetic? I really don't know the answer to this question.
We can teach people to be more considerate, though it's much easier to get them when they're kids, I'm sure. So perhaps we can teach them to engage their empathy.
My point was that you will offend someone no matter what you do.
Sure, but I'm sure we also agree that that doesn't give one licence for one to be negligent in considering the effect one's words or actions might have in the context they are being spoken.
I don't think that was a fair assessment. I never suggested any such thing.
I was exaggerating for effect, but I see that that didn't really read how it was meant to come across. I kind of figured you wouldn't like being approached in dark alleyways and that you might concede that there is some territory sexual advances should be limited in. Then it all becomes a question of whether an elevator crosses the line, or if it does so enough times to warrant extreme caution with your approaches. The exaggeration was meant to mirror your exaggerating about me being kind to your 'poor little women's feelings' and the bravado of essentially claiming thicker skin than RW et al which I realize may have been in part, Satan's Lawyering
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.
I am always fine with a bit of Devil's Advocacy. For the sake of ease, I will still respond to the arguments as if they were sincere beliefs of the hypothetical person who might hold them who I will assign the convenient personal pronoun of 'you'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by roxrkool, posted 11-19-2012 7:43 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by roxrkool, posted 11-21-2012 2:27 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 261 of 526 (680681)
11-20-2012 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by New Cat's Eye
11-20-2012 12:20 PM


He thinks that he "gets" to spin people's posts as some sort of legitimate debating strategy, or something.
No, I told you what the legitimate debate strategy was. I get to argue against your examples, even if you think they support your argument. Think of your examples as the legs of a stool, and the seat is your argument. Your argument is upheld if your examples are valid. But if I can kick the legs out from under your stool by showing that your examples aren't, actually, supportive of your argument, then your argument collapses.
Why do you think I don't get to do that? Like I said back then:
quote:
If I say that there has never been a female President of the United States, and you say "what about Abraham Lincoln", I get to defend my position by pointing out that, in fact, Abraham Lincoln was not a woman.
Since you never replied to that post, I assumed you'd withdrawn your objection. But here you are, repeating it in another thread. So what's the deal, here? Why on Earth do you think you get to raise examples that are beyond challenge?
You're, like, the fifth person I've seen on here directly complaining about this (counting me).
I can only ascribe this to the dizzying power of my breathtakingly effective arguments. It must be a disconcerting thing indeed to be so quickly and incontrovertibly proven wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-20-2012 12:20 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 262 of 526 (680684)
11-20-2012 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Straggler
11-20-2012 8:45 AM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Could you explain exactly what it is you think lift-guy did that qualifies as an act of sexism?
I did explain. Watson explained. What remains unclear to you? You'll have to be more specific than just asking for explanations that have already been given.
Has anyone said otherwise?
Well, yeah. In Message 245 and Message 252. Like I said before, it beggars belief that anyone would think that an invitation for "coffee" to a place that doesn't have any coffee at it is something to accept on face value, but you and Rahvin both tried to at least imply that we couldn't reject that interpretation out of hand.
But that's clearly nonsense. It's just not a matter in doubt that the invitation was meant to be sexual. Your implications to the contrary are just trying to confuse the issue.
Lift-guy was being a dick. Rebecca Watson was being a dick in making a big deal about lift-guy being a dick.
But she didn't make a big deal about it. She made a very small deal about it. The problem is that even making a small deal about it - a single comment about it in a single YouTube video - was sufficient to create a Very Big Deal of a sexist, violent response from the community of movement atheism. That's the problem. Rebecca Watson complaining about something that made her uncomfortable in the elevator was never the problem. The problem is that the atheist community decided, apparently almost as a whole, that as a woman she could not possibly be allowed to complain about the actions of any man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Straggler, posted 11-20-2012 8:45 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Straggler, posted 11-20-2012 6:56 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 263 of 526 (680685)
11-20-2012 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by roxrkool
11-20-2012 12:15 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
And the fact that I have no clue what "rubric" means, probably not.
Oh, sorry. I guess that's one of those words I overuse. Seriously, my apologies for the confusion.
It means "a scheme for grading or measuring something." It's mostly used in an academic sense; when the professor tells you in advance how he's going to grade your presentation, he's giving you his rubric.
I couldn't read his mind, so I have no idea if we did what he wanted.
That's not what I asked, though. I'm not asking you to read his mind, I'm asking you to read your own. Did you do what you wanted? Or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by roxrkool, posted 11-20-2012 12:15 PM roxrkool has not replied

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


Message 264 of 526 (680687)
11-20-2012 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Straggler
11-20-2012 1:01 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
So women aren't attending atheist/skeptic conferences because they are scared of being objectified and raped.
Yeah, probably some aren't. Why would that be surprising?
And how do you explain the greater female attendance at skeptic conferences that have adopted an explicit sexual harassment policy compared to those that haven't? Isn't that a pretty obvious indication that there are at least some women whom the community of movement atheism has, in the past, discouraged from attending by not taking sexist violence seriously?
Why is everybody acting like "sexism in atheism" is a self-refuting proposition?
Without commenting on whether this is true or not it does seem that RW first raised "misogynistic thought" and rape as issues in the context of this elevator story.
No, the story makes it pretty clear that she was not the first to raise it, but rather, she was responding to people who accused her of taking offense at merely the idea of being found sexually attractive, which isn't what happened.
You don't seem to have read what you posted, I guess. Somehow you arrived at exactly the opposite interpretation of events.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Straggler, posted 11-20-2012 1:01 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Straggler, posted 11-20-2012 7:05 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 265 of 526 (680698)
11-20-2012 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by crashfrog
11-20-2012 4:12 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Straggler writes:
Could you explain exactly what it is you think lift-guy did that qualifies as an act of sexism?
Crash writes:
I did explain. Watson explained. What remains unclear to you?
What remains unclear to me is what exactly it is that qualifies as sexism here rather than a clumsy and unwanted sexual advance.
Is it being propositioned in a lift? Is it being propositioned at a skeptics conference? Is it the fact that a well known feminist was propositioned at all?
Is it a combination of factors? And if so what is it that turns a clumsy sexual advance into an act of sexism?
Or are all clumsy sexual advances acts of sexism?
Crash writes:
I did explain. Watson explained.
Then it won't hurt to repeat it explicitly in answer to a direct question.
Could you explain exactly what it is you think lift-guy did that qualifies as an act of sexism?
Does the term "sexist" apply to any sexual advance or are there other criteria that need to be met? If so what are they?
Please don't just insist you have answered this. If you genuinely have just repeat your answer.......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2012 4:12 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2012 7:36 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 266 of 526 (680700)
11-20-2012 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by crashfrog
11-20-2012 4:24 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Do you consider objectification of women and rape to be a significant problem at atheist/skeptic conferences?
In my (admittedly limited) experience of conferences (I've only personally been to work ones and heard from friends directly about political ones) can be pretty fucking debaucherous......
Is there perhaps a conference mindset that has little to do with atheism/skepticism and a lot to do with similarly minded men and women being thrust together in an enclosed environment away from home........
Have you ever been to any conferences?
Crash writes:
Why is everybody acting like "sexism in atheism" is a self-refuting proposition?
I don't think anyone has said that at all have they?
Personaly I see little reason to think atheists are going to be significantly more or less sexist than anybody else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2012 4:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2012 7:43 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 267 of 526 (680703)
11-20-2012 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Straggler
11-20-2012 6:56 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
What remains unclear to me is what exactly it is that qualifies as sexism here rather than a clumsy and unwanted sexual advance.
What qualified as sexism is the part where a woman's own desires and expressed preferences were completely disregarded in the service of a man's sexual pleasure.
Like I've said I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. We don't need to read minds to know if it happened because it's not a matter of his thoughts, but his actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Straggler, posted 11-20-2012 6:56 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Straggler, posted 11-20-2012 7:47 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 268 of 526 (680705)
11-20-2012 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Straggler
11-20-2012 7:05 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Do you consider objectification of women and rape to be a significant problem at atheist/skeptic conferences?
Apparently a significant number of women do. Since they're the ones it's happening to, isn't it their opinion and not mine that matters?
I mean, it seems like you have the same kind of blind spot that the movement atheists have had about this. "Is sexual harassment and assault a problem at atheist conventions? Let's ask a bunch of men and find out!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Straggler, posted 11-20-2012 7:05 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Straggler, posted 11-20-2012 7:53 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 269 of 526 (680706)
11-20-2012 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by crashfrog
11-20-2012 7:36 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Crash writes:
What qualified as sexism is the part where a woman's own desires and expressed preferences were completely disregarded in the service of a man's sexual pleasure.
So do all clumsy and unwanted sexual advances made by men qualify as sexism?
Crash writes:
Like I've said I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
I think it's the dividing lne betwen making unwanted sexual advances and acts of sexism that is unclear. How are you distinguishing between the two?
Or are all unwanted sexual advances acts of sexism?
Crash writes:
We don't need to read minds to know if it happened because it's not a matter of his thoughts, but his actions.
Well at least you've acknowledged tnhat it is his actions and intents that are the key here rather than insisting that the mere fact she felt insulted/sexualised qualifies it as some sort of inarguable act of objectification and thus sexism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2012 7:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2012 8:04 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 270 of 526 (680707)
11-20-2012 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by crashfrog
11-20-2012 7:43 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Crash writes:
Apparently a significant number of women do.
What is this "significant number" and where are you getting this data from?
Crash writes:
Since they're the ones it's happening to, isn't it their opinion and not mine that matters?
If it is genuinely the reason that a significant number of women don't attend atheist/skeptic conferences then of course it matters.
Crash writes:
I mean, it seems like you have the same kind of blind spot that the movement atheists have had about this. "Is sexual harassment and assault a problem at atheist conventions? Let's ask a bunch of men and find out!"
I'm not asking a "bunch of men". I'm asking you for the source for this conclusion so that we can asses it's validity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2012 7:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2012 8:06 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