Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The war of atheism
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 206 of 526 (679178)
11-12-2012 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by crashfrog
11-12-2012 5:56 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Hey dude.
Do you fancy coming back to my place for a coffee?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2012 5:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


(3)
Message 230 of 526 (680355)
11-19-2012 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by crashfrog
11-19-2012 8:17 AM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
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. If I insult you, for instance, you don't have to read my mind to know if you were insulted, you only have to read your own.
If you say hello to me and I am insulted by that should you be criticised for insulting me or should I be criticised for being over-sensitive?
She may well have felt sexualised by the encounter in question. But the mere fact that she felt that way doesn't necessarily make the man a misogynist does it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2012 8:17 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2012 2:24 PM Straggler 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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

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


Message 287 of 526 (680820)
11-21-2012 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by crashfrog
11-21-2012 11:40 AM


Re: Objectification and rape - Significant problem at atheist/skeptic conferences
"misogynistic thought" was a phrase used by RW in the transcript I provided in Message 259
A message I wrote in reply to youir assertion that no-one but Roxrcool had used the term "misogynist".
It's from the same transcript where she said this:
quote:
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.
You then went on to claim here that a "significant number" of women consider objectification and rape to be a significant problem at atheist/skeptic conferences.
Again - Can you link to a source the provides the basis for this conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2012 11:40 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2012 12:31 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