Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The war of atheism
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 271 of 526 (680709)
11-20-2012 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Straggler
11-20-2012 7:47 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
So do all clumsy and unwanted sexual advances made by men qualify as sexism?
Did someone say that they did? What are you on about, here?
How are you distinguishing between the two?
Didn't I just fucking tell you? Seriously, straggler, I don't understand the issue you're having with this. Why are you asking questions if you're just going to ignore the answers?
Well at least you've acknowledged tnhat it is his actions and intents that are the key here
His intent has nothing to do with it, I keep telling you that. It's about his actions - his action of completely disregarding her individual desires and wishes. Like I've told you, you're going to have to elaborate on what, specifically, is confusing you here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Straggler, posted 11-20-2012 7:47 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Huntard, posted 11-21-2012 8:14 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 275 by Straggler, posted 11-21-2012 8:20 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 272 of 526 (680710)
11-20-2012 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Straggler
11-20-2012 7:53 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
I'm asking you for the source for this conclusion so that we can asses it's validity.
I'm a man, straggler. I assume even you know that. So why are you asking me about the source of a widespread view among women that movement atheism is largely dismissive of their concerns? Why don't you talk to movement atheist women about it, or read some of what they've already said about it?
You don't seem prepared to accept any information about this not delivered by a man. Why is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Straggler, posted 11-20-2012 7:53 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Straggler, posted 11-21-2012 8:03 AM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 273 of 526 (680781)
11-21-2012 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by crashfrog
11-20-2012 8:06 PM


Objectification and rape - Significant problem at atheist/skeptic conferences
Crash writes:
I'm a man, straggler. I assume even you know that. So why are you asking me about the source of a widespread view among women that movement atheism is largely dismissive of their concerns?
I'm asking you because you made the claim that a "significant number" of women consider objectification and rape to be a significant problem at atheist/skeptic conferences.
Crash writes:
Why don't you talk to movement atheist women about it, or read some of what they've already said about it?
If there were any women here making that same claim I would ask them that same question. I am, after all, an equal opportunity questioner.
Crash writes:
You don't seem prepared to accept any information about this not delivered by a man. Why is that?
You, nor anybody else here, has provided anything that could be legitimately described as information regarding this statement of yours. You have stated that a "significant number" of women consider objectification and rape to be a significant problem at atheist/skeptic conferences.
You may or may not be right about this - I'm simply asking you to provide some sort of source for this "information".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2012 8:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2012 11:31 AM Straggler has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 274 of 526 (680782)
11-21-2012 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by crashfrog
11-20-2012 8:04 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
crashfrog writes:
His intent has nothing to do with it, I keep telling you that. It's about his actions - his action of completely disregarding her individual desires and wishes.
But did he know here desires and wishes before he made his advance? Simply yes or no would sufice. I seem to have picked up that he asked her repeatedly, even after she told him no. Was this the case? Again, yes or no would suffice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2012 8:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2012 11:32 AM Huntard has not replied

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


Message 275 of 526 (680783)
11-21-2012 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by crashfrog
11-20-2012 8:04 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Straggler writes:
I think it's the dividing line between making unwanted sexual advances and acts of sexism that is unclear. How are you distinguishing between the two?
Crash writes:
It's about his actions - his action of completely disregarding her individual desires and wishes.
If a homosexual man propositions another man in a way that "completely disregards his individual desires and wishes" is he being sexist?
If a woman propositions a man in a way that "completely disregards his individual desires and wishes" is she being sexist?
If a homosexual woman propositions a another woman in a way that "completely disregards her individual desires and wishes" is she being sexist?
If a man propositions a woman in a way that "completely disregards her individual desires and wishes" is he being sexist?
Crash writes:
Like I've told you, you're going to have to elaborate on what, specifically, is confusing you here.
I'm still very unclear as to what elevates an unwanted (and quite possibly unpleasant) sexual advance into an act of sexism.
Crash writes:
What are you on about, here?
Are all sexual propositions that "completely disregard the individual desires and wishes" of the other party acts of sexism? Or just some of them?
Being a selfish dick and acting in a sexist manner are not necessarily the same thing. I think you are conflating the two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2012 8:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Stile, posted 11-21-2012 9:44 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 283 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2012 11:40 AM Straggler has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 276 of 526 (680795)
11-21-2012 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Straggler
11-21-2012 8:20 AM


The Problem
This isn't meant as a personal reply to Straggler, I'm just using a quote from his post in order to say what I want to say below...
If a homosexual man propositions another man in a way that "completely disregards his individual desires and wishes" is he being sexist?
If a woman propositions a man in a way that "completely disregards his individual desires and wishes" is she being sexist?
If a homosexual woman propositions a another woman in a way that "completely disregards her individual desires and wishes" is she being sexist?
If a man propositions a woman in a way that "completely disregards her individual desires and wishes" is he being sexist?
I don't think that any of this is the problem.
This is the correct view for the situation:
Elevator guy asked RW to go for coffee? Maybe creepy, maybe fine... who cares?
RW didn't like the offer and made fun of the guy? Maybe justified, maybe overboard... who cares?
People responded to RW with death threats and rape threats over this? What!???? Who the hell are these people and why do they think this kind of response is okay??!!! (Hint: This is where the focus should be).
The problem is, even after 270+ messages, people are still talking about whether or not elevator guy was justified, or whether or not RW was justified.
The issue should be about the crapload of cowards that thought any part of this situation demanded a response included death threats and/or rape threats.
We can even assume for the sake of argument that elevator guy was completely wrong, sexist and being a mysoginistic scumbag (regardless of if he actually was)... he's still not the big problem in this ordeal.
We can even assume for the sake of argument that RW was completely wrong, blew it out of proportion and totally rode the coattails of this publicity for her own gain (regardless of if she actually did)... she's still not the big problem in this ordeal.
Even given either of those two assumption... the big, massive, not-even-close, far-and-away largest problem here is the responses from those who thought any of this ordeal justified death or rape threats to RW.
To even begin to entertain the idea that whether or not the death/rape threats were okay depends on if we can understand the situation between RW and elevator guy... is equally ludicrous and appalling as to suggest that the threats are not the overwhelmingly biggest problem.
Talking about RW and elevator guy "just to figure it out" for fun can too easily be taken as "entertaining the aforementioned heinous idea above" and shouldn't be done in itself unless it is extremely clear that all parties involved in the discussion already agree that the "real problem" is the reaction from the peanut gallery. Cutting out the larger issue to discuss the smaller issues trivializes the larger issue and adds to the problem of allowing them to happen in the future.
The fact that we're talking about elevator guy and RW and all... and no one is continuing to express outrage at the actual, massive idiots who caused the problem... is the problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Straggler, posted 11-21-2012 8:20 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Huntard, posted 11-21-2012 10:06 AM Stile has replied
 Message 279 by Straggler, posted 11-21-2012 10:37 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 277 of 526 (680798)
11-21-2012 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Stile
11-21-2012 9:44 AM


Re: The Problem
Stile writes:
I don't think that any of this is the problem.
This is the correct view for the situation:
Elevator guy asked RW to go for coffee? Maybe creepy, maybe fine... who cares?
Apparently, Miss Watson did. Oh, and crashfrog seems to care as well, for some reason or another.
RW didn't like the offer and made fun of the guy? Maybe justified, maybe overboard... who cares?
Apparently, a bunch of dickheads did.
People responded to RW with death threats and rape threats over this? What!???? Who the hell are these people and why do they think this kind of response is okay??!!! (Hint: This is where the focus should be).
Because they are dickheads, can do it annonimously, it's a tribal thing, they're dickheads. And most of all, did I mention they are dickheads?
The problem is, even after 270+ messages, people are still talking about whether or not elevator guy was justified, or whether or not RW was justified.
The issue should be about the crapload of cowards that thought any part of this situation demanded a response included death threats and/or rape threats.
We're still talking about that because crashfrog seems to think the guy did something wrong. Because other people can't see why this could possibly be the case, or why we should care (you included, it seems), and they are trying to get to grips why crashfrog apparently thinks this way.
We can even assume for the sake of argument that elevator guy was completely wrong, sexist and being a mysoginistic scumbag (regardless of if he actually was)... he's still not the big problem in this ordeal.
No, but if this was the case, Miss Watson's response makes more sense, and the response she then received is even worse.
We can even assume for the sake of argument that RW was completely wrong, blew it out of proportion and totally rode the coattails of this publicity for her own gain (regardless of if she actually did)... she's still not the big problem in this ordeal.
No, but this makes the responses more understandable. They are still horrible and wrong, but more understandable.
Even given either of those two assumption... the big, massive, not-even-close, far-and-away largest problem here is the responses from those who thought any of this ordeal justified death or rape threats to RW.
Yes, which i don't think anybody here is defending.
To even begin to entertain the idea that whether or not the death/rape threats were okay depends on if we can understand the situation between RW and elevator guy... is equally ludicrous and appalling as to suggest that the threats are not the overwhelmingly biggest problem.
Talking about RW and elevator guy "just to figure it out" for fun can too easily be taken as "entertaining the aforementioned heinous idea above" and shouldn't be done in itself unless it is extremely clear that all parties involved in the discussion already agree that the "real problem" is the reaction from the peanut gallery. Cutting out the larger issue to discuss the smaller issues trivializes the larger issue and adds to the problem of allowing them to happen in the future.
I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone in this thread who thinks it was actually ok for Miss watson to receive the responses she did. Since that is really not a point of contention, we focus on another point, that is, apparently, contended.
The fact that we're talking about elevator guy and RW and all... and no one is continuing to express outrage at the actual, massive idiots who caused the problem... is the problem.
We've already expressed it. I for one have, and I think everybody in this thread, even if they have not done so explicitly, thinks the same way about this. Having a long string of messages saying "I agree, these guys are dickheads", does not a very fun thread make, however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Stile, posted 11-21-2012 9:44 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Stile, posted 11-21-2012 10:10 AM Huntard has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 278 of 526 (680800)
11-21-2012 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Huntard
11-21-2012 10:06 AM


Re: The Problem
Huntard writes:
I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone in this thread who thinks it was actually ok for Miss watson to receive the responses she did. Since that is really not a point of contention, we focus on another point, that is, apparently, contended.
...
We've already expressed it. I for one have, and I think everybody in this thread, even if they have not done so explicitly, thinks the same way about this. Having a long string of messages saying "I agree, these guys are dickheads", does not a very fun thread make, however.
I know.
Sometimes I just like to rant. And where is a better place than this?
Did you see the height of my soapbox? It must've been at least, like... 3 feet high!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Huntard, posted 11-21-2012 10:06 AM Huntard has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 279 of 526 (680803)
11-21-2012 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Stile
11-21-2012 9:44 AM


Re: The Problem
It should hardly come as any great revelation that there are a plethora of people on the internet who are prepared to be anonymously hateful and bigoted.
stile writes:
The issue should be about the crapload of cowards that thought any part of this situation demanded a response included death threats and/or rape threats.
These people are dickheads. The internet is awash with such dickheads.
However I don’t see this as a problem specific to the atheist/skeptic community and I certainly don’t see it as any reason to conclude that women who go to atheist conferences specifically are any more likely to be objectified and raped than those attending conferences that have nothing to do with atheism/skepticism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Stile, posted 11-21-2012 9:44 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 280 of 526 (680809)
11-21-2012 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Straggler
11-21-2012 8:03 AM


Re: Objectification and rape - Significant problem at atheist/skeptic conferences
I'm asking you because you made the claim that a "significant number" of women consider objectification and rape to be a significant problem at atheist/skeptic conferences.
Yes, and they've hardly taken steps to conceal their views from the rest of the internet. Why don't you find out what they have to say about it?
I'm simply asking you to provide some sort of source for this "information".
The source is the women who are expressing these views. You could start with Rebecca Watson, or Greta Christina. They'll point you to others, I'm sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Straggler, posted 11-21-2012 8:03 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Straggler, posted 11-21-2012 11:39 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 281 of 526 (680810)
11-21-2012 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Huntard
11-21-2012 8:14 AM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
But did he know here desires and wishes before he made his advance? Simply yes or no would sufice.
Yes, because she had told him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Huntard, posted 11-21-2012 8:14 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by hooah212002, posted 11-21-2012 11:45 AM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 282 of 526 (680813)
11-21-2012 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by crashfrog
11-21-2012 11:31 AM


Re: Objectification and rape - Significant problem at atheist/skeptic conferences
As the person who made the claim here that a "significant number" of women consider objectification and rape to be a significant problem at atheist/skeptic conferences why don't you provide some links to sites that you think justify that statement?
Crash writes:
The source is the women who are expressing these views.
I've found lots of blog entries citing the elevator-gate incident as some sort of prime example of sexism in action........
I remain entirely unconvinced that elevator guy was exhibiting "misogynistic thoughts" or being sexist rather than being a bit of a dick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2012 11:31 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2012 11:40 AM Straggler has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 283 of 526 (680814)
11-21-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Straggler
11-21-2012 8:20 AM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
If a homosexual man propositions another man in a way that "completely disregards his individual desires and wishes" is he being sexist?
He's objectifying. When women are objectified by men, it's sexist.
I'm still very unclear as to what elevates an unwanted (and quite possibly unpleasant) sexual advance into an act of sexism.
I don't understand how it can be unclear, as it's been explained at least four times, now. Can you elaborate on the nature of your lack of understanding? I keep asking you that and you keep repeating that "it's not clear." Well, ok, but in what way is it not clear? Which words do you require definitions for? What concepts are you unfamiliar with?
I can't help you understand if you're not willing to explain the problem.
Are all sexual propositions that "completely disregard the individual desires and wishes" of the other party acts of sexism?
The ones where a privileged gender do it to an unprivileged gender are the ones that are sexist. Similarly, the ones where a privileged race does it to an unprivileged race are the ones that are racist, the ones where a privileged religion does it to an unprivileged religion are religious discrimination, etc. In general, when members of a privileged category completely disregard the individual desires and wishes of members of the unprivileged category, that's discriminatory to the members of the unprivileged category. When the discrimination happens along racial lines, it's called "racist." When it happens along gender lines, it's called "sexist."
So what's the issue, here? The concept of privilege? We can unpack that, if you like.
Being a selfish dick and acting in a sexist manner are not necessarily the same thing.
In situations where "being a selfish dick" seems to break such that it's usually men being selfish dicks to women, and not so much men to men, women to women, or women to men, we should suspect sexism. I'm always surprised by the people who don't see this as immediately obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Straggler, posted 11-21-2012 8:20 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Straggler, posted 11-21-2012 11:45 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 288 by hooah212002, posted 11-21-2012 11:55 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 284 of 526 (680816)
11-21-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Straggler
11-21-2012 11:39 AM


Re: Objectification and rape - Significant problem at atheist/skeptic conferences
I remain entirely unconvinced that elevator guy was exhibiting "misogynistic thoughts" or being sexist rather than being a bit of a dick.
What's the source of your quote "misogynistic thoughts", specifically?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Straggler, posted 11-21-2012 11:39 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Straggler, posted 11-21-2012 11:54 AM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 285 of 526 (680817)
11-21-2012 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by crashfrog
11-21-2012 11:40 AM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
So basically people are "completely disregarding the individual desires and wishes" of others much of the time but only when men do it to women does it qualify as sexism.
Is that your position here?
Crash writes:
In situations where "being a selfish dick" seems to break such that it's usually men being selfish dicks to women, and not so much men to men, women to women, or women to men, we should suspect sexism.
Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2012 11:40 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2012 12:18 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