|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The war of atheism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Hey dude.
Do you fancy coming back to my place for a coffee?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
"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: 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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024