Summations Only

I don't understand how you missed what the big deal was. The situation was pretty simple:1) Rebecca Watson gave a speech at an atheist convention about how sometimes some guys do things, like hit on her when she's stuck in a confined space, that make her uncomfortable and they don't seem to realize it. Immediately after the speech, a guy hit on her while she was stuck in a confined space. She wrote a blog post about the irony, hoping to illustrate the issue.2) In response, hundreds of atheist men came out of the woodwork to tell her she was a stupid fucking slut who should be raped to death, possibly by themselves; hundreds more came out in vocal support of the right of atheist men to say that to prominent women; yet hundreds more came out to tell Watson that while they didn't agree with violence and the people who said those things should be ashamed, they could understand why they would react the way they did - they're men, after all, and a woman should know better than to antagonize them by opening her mouth.3) A few people noticed the above and suggested, quite timidly, that maybe the enormous sexist response to a pretty mild criticism of a fairly poorly-considered act maybe actually does indicate that there's kind of a sexism problem in the atheist community. Richard Dawkins came out and basically said "there can't be any such thing as a sexism problem in atheism so long as a single woman, somewhere, is wearing a burkha. Or if there is, we're certainly not going to pay attention to it."That's "Elevator-gate." I'm not sure what you read that was the "last straw" for you on Pharyngula, but PZ Myers was doing yeoman's work dealing with the storm sewer of sexist filth that pours forth anytime you say the words "Rebecca Watson", so I'm guessing you just didn't ever get the whole story. His notion that if a woman is telling you about a sexism problem that she perceives in your community, and you're not yourself a woman, then you should basically shut the fuck up and listen to what they have to say about it is exactly the perfect response and one I strongly agree with.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Well, if you don't agree that the value of a woman is equal to that of a man, and that women deserve, by dint of being human beings, equal access to public spaces and institutions, then why should she, or anyone, allow you to call yourself a "feminist"? It's a bit like saying "I'm a vegetarian, except that I eat pork and chicken and beef." Do words just not have meaning?

I'm suggesting that words have both meaning and connotation, and that sometimes bad actors want to avail themselves of the positive connotations of a label without merit. I'm suggesting that there's no "label police" but us, and therefore that we should push back when people attempt to appropriate labels they don't deserve. Like "feminism." Then doubtless she could provide a concrete example for discussion. I took her to be referring to the groups, individuals, and ideologies that Rebecca Watson was saying were not feminist, and those would be groups, individuals, and ideologies that aren't feminists by my description above, but call themselves that regardless. An interesting thing is that you don't provide even a single concrete example of this. Are you familiar with a creation called the "strawfeminist"? His remarks were read into the record - by you, as I recall. I saw perfect concord between his remarks and my summary. Right. The proper "proportion" he sees for discussion of women's issues in atheism is that so long as a woman anywhere in the world is wearing a burkha, there's absolutely no need to discuss women's issues in atheism.Look, I continue to think Dawkins is great, but he just flubbed this. He was needlessly snide and dismissive at a time when the discussion was about how the male leaders of "movement atheism" are completely dismissive of the concerns of atheist women. How bone-headed. Like you, I bet he doesn't remember even a single actual example of a "ridiculous form of seventies feminism. All he remembers, like you, is the strawfeminism promoted to discredit the project of equality for women. The problem is, you remember something that nobody actually ever said.

She didn't say it either, though. You're not making a very strong case for your ability to tell the difference between things feminists have said, and things people have said feminists have said in order to discredit them. Oh. Well then.

The hanging comma doesn't tell you that there's maybe some context here you're not getting? I mean what you've quoted isn't even a complete sentence. Except that it's not. I don't know. We're not yet talking about things that Dworkin actually said.

You guys keep restating what I'm saying, and then telling me I'm wrong. I don't get it.I agree with you, Mod, that Dawkins is being completely dismissive of Watson's issue with the elevator guy, and with the larger problem of sexism in "movement atheism" altogether. And that's the problem. Dawkins' reply is to continue to be dismissive. The problem isn't that Watson and others are refusing to accept his dismissal; the problem is that he's dismissing them. Dawkins is basically asking, here, exactly what the problem is that can't be solved by just ignoring it. People are trying to tell him, but because they use naughty words he doesn't feel like he has to listen.

Except that it's not:

quote:

---

A human being has a body that is inviolate; and when it is violated, it is abused. A woman has a body that is penetrated in intercourse: permeable, its corporeal solidness a lie. The discourse of male truth--literature, science, philosophy, pornography--calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some confidence. Violation is a synonym for intercourse. At the same time, the penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse; a normal use; it is appropriate to enter her, to push into ("violate") the boundaries of her body. She is human, of course, but by a standard that does not include physical privacy. She is, in fact, human by a standard that precludes physical privacy, since to keep a man out altogether and for a lifetime is deviant in the extreme, a psychopathology, a repudiation of the way in which she is expected to manifest her humanity.

---

She's not describing her own views. She's referring to the patriarchal view dominant in the culture as she sees it. Do I agree that view is present? Absolutely. Even more so when Dworkin was writing. But you've made a fundamental attribution error when you try to make Dworkin out to be some kind of radical who believes that a man can't have sex with a woman without raping her. That's just not something she ever said; that's more of the "strawfeminist" whose views are so much easier to rebut and dismiss than the actual views of any actual feminist.

Yes, you're right. Instead, the views of feminists that don't exist have been put in Rebecca Watson's mouth (or text, or whatever) and used as a basis for the conclusion that, whatever all the hubbub was about, it must have been her fault. Rebecca Watson's actual statements and views have gone unrebutted, which is what makes it so weird when people act like she's some fringe figure we can just dismiss from now on.But, you know, somebody once wore a t-shirt or something - we dunno, nobody took a picture, it's just something that Bluegenes remembers happened once - so Watson is a disregardable slut. Good thing, too, or else we might really have some troubling issues to deal with. Don't change the subject.

No evidence has been presented. You've found completely reasonable statements, not any "radical" feminists who have asserted that all men are rapists. Not a single example of any t-shirt. You've been moving those goalposts so fast I'd have to capture it with those cameras they use to film nuclear explosions. Tangle made that claim in Message 38. What did you think he meant by "it reminds me off..."? I don't doubt it. There's every kind of person with every kind of view. But for the most part, the "memory" that you and bluegenes and Tangle seem to have that they're all over the place, wearing t-shirts calling all men rapists just isn't true. It's a fabrication, and the people Tangle was "reminded" of simply didn't exist. There's an enormous effort to portray feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon as sex-hating harridans via completely manufactured quotes, like the ones you've promulgated. But they simply didn't say those things. I've proven it. I dunno. In this thread and the other, you've lied about what I and others have said quite a bit. Was that supposed to make me feel good about you? People seem to be at their most dishonest when they try to argue with me. You're not the first, and the conclusion that I've reached is that there's just something about the compactness of my written word that makes people think I'm being brusque or rude, and they become determined to "put me in my place" by any means necessary, up to and including complete misrepresentations of my words (and sometimes their own.) I can't help it that I tend to respond to provocation in kind.

What's the R-Squared for this trend line?

What banners and T-shirts, specifically?

Ok, but who said that? Not anybody you've quoted. Those aren't "potential burdens." Those are actual burdens - having to pay for the contraception, suffer its side effects and worry about it's interactions with your other medications, and so on. Do you know that even though hormonal birth control is, in practice, safer than asprin, they still don't offer it over the counter? That means that if you want to use it, you need a doctor's prescription, which means you need a doctor's visit.Rahvin, have you ever needed a doctor's permission before you could have sex? I never have. That's a real burden - not a "potential" one - that accrues only to women who want to have intercourse with men. Lesbians don't need birth control (unless it's to treat some various hormonal conditions) and men don't need it to have sex with men. Who is the feminist that claimed that every act of PIV intercourse is an assault on a woman? Otherwise, again, we're talking about the things you're making up and pretending are real things feminists have said - which is exactly what I said people do. So you've proven me right. The one is irrelevant to the other. I'm sure she loves it. But it doesn't change the fact that she's uniquely burdened by it. And you need to examine if your incredibly angry response to having that fact pointed out isn't, in fact, a cover for the guilt you feel at your privilege. It sounds rather more meaningless than extreme, really. I don't understand why it gets you so upset to hear it. It certainly doesn't bother me, and I don't consider it extreme just because I've never heard it before. No, it's not. That's your invention. It's not even an interpretation - you're just quoting one set of words, and then saying that they really mean an unrelated set of other words. That's just nonsense. I'm sorry, I don't see where she's said anything about dogs at all. Ignored the rest of your made-up pseudo-translations? Yes, that's exactly what I did. We're talking about what Atheist+ feminists have actually said, remember? Not what you're pretending they said.

..why? And, bizarrely, you chose to rebut that by just making things up that nobody had said. Thus actually proving my point - people make up things that feminists say in order to make there out to be this "radical feminism" and, by association, tar people who stand up to a sexist and misogynist culture.

There are many schools of everything. The internet is a kind of random idea generator. You can find advocacy for any conceivable viewpoint. So what? The point remains that you, Rahvin, and Tangle are all attempting to discredit Watson and the larger project of Atheism+ via "guilt-by-association" to a completely anonymous "radical feminism", the worst excesses of which as presented are simply statements you've invented. Summaries of what they "supposedly" believe. Interpretations of what they "really" mean when they say something else.It's amazing. You think you can sit there and say "well, I know that radical feminists believe that all PIV intercourse is the same as rape" and you actually think that's evidence that there are radical feminists who believe that all PIV intercourse is the same as rape! Oh, well, you said it so clearly the feminists must be wrong. I can't imagine how there could be anyone who has not yet acquiesced to your instantly-convincing argument by personal assertion. It's not a problem for Rebecca Watson, either. But the situation you describe was not what she faced. She was not one of two people who agreed to have casual sex. She was someone to whom an unwanted offer was made that resulted in her feeling uncomfortable. And when her discomfort was the subject of nothing more than a brief aside, she was subject to such an enormous torrent of sexualized violence and abuse from the supposedly pro-consenting-adults community that it revealed a major problem with the atheist community's treatment of women as little more than arm candy, as opposed to equal partners and fellow travelers with legitimate things to say. And the response by the community to this problem being revealed was to demonize Watson for being the one to pull back the curtain. It was gross and disgusting and you should be deeply personally ashamed of your efforts to defend that demonization with such dishonest tactics as you have used.

See, this is what I'm talking about - you're ascribing to your opponents positions that they don't hold. Where did Rebecca Watson say that making propositions is anti-feminist, misogynistic, or sexist? Where did I? Be specific. I didn't address them in a reply to you, but I showed how Dworkin had been misquoted and taken out of context. Ok, then present such an observation. And no one, including Watson, has asserted that it does. The problem is that you can't seem to distinguish between criticism of two parties having consensual casual sex, and criticism of individuals making uncomfortable propositions without the consent of their target.That's two different things, but you and Watson's other detractors have conflated her criticism of the latter with criticisms of the former that she did not make. That's why I accused you of attacking Watson based on the views of a strawman-feminist; it's exactly what you keep doing, over and over again. Now you're even doing it to me. Yes! Why on Earth should anyone make a nonconsensual proposition that makes another person uncomfortable? Why on Earth is that not such an immediately obvious Thing to Not Do? And why on Earth should the people who say "hey, don't do that" be subject to the enormous campaign, of which you are a part, to quell and quash any opprobrium being leveled against the people making such propositions? Has it? Name even a single person whom Rebecca Watson has said should be raped to death. Name one.