Cool. Maybe I just see it differently because my mother was attacked in an elevator.
There were many, many, many comments on Watson's posts about how if they saw her in an elevator, they would rape her. Not sure if those comments survive today, if it were my website I'd probably delete them because I wouldn't want that trash there.
Considering that 1 in 6 women have been victims of sexual assault in America, I think telling them that any fear they might feel is unjustified is misogynistic as well. His comments that they should stop complaining about being afraid of rape because women in muslim countries have their genitals mutilated is also misogynistic.
Or maybe you're willing to swallow anecdotes without any evidence because of what happened to your mother, and you're not exactly unbiased.
No one is telling ANY woman that fear of rape is unjustified. We're telling this woman that the man who spoke to her in the elevator? He didn't rape her. If you equivocate a vile crime like rape with saying hi to someone in an elevator then no one is allowed to do anything ever.
But then I'm speaking as someone who has been falsely accused of rape multiple times, always acrimoniously near the end of a relationship. Legally I'm a rapist since my first gf was 16 when I was 18. And I've been raped by a woman. So when women do their own part to trivialize rape, either by making false accusations, by equivocating talking in an elevator with sexual assault, or by insisting all men are potential rapists, it's harmful to any real discussion and hurtful to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to being doctrinary: I have yet to meet an atheist of any stripe who does this as badly as religious people.
Did you miss my mention of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris? Both these men have advocated nuking the Middle East, because that's the only way to free the world of Islamic extremism. Crazy isn't confined only to the religious population of the world. That you haven't met these people personally isn't the issue. Don't make me play the Stalin card...
Aubrey: Societal norms on all fronts have changed massively in 3000 years. I completely agree. The only place where you seriously hear people talking about things like God destroying cities because of their sinfulness, someone getting cancer as a punishment for their sins, how apostasy should be punished by death, how women adulterers should be stoned, and so on, is in religious rants by religious people. One of the best examples is how religious nutcases started saying after the tsunami that the reason was the sinfulness of swedish people. The death toll among swedes was a hundred or so. Total deaths was over a hundred thousand people.
And if you certainly think I am being abrasive and intolerant for saying these things, that says more about you than about me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did you miss my mention of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris? Both these men have advocated nuking the Middle East, because that's the only way to free the world of Islamic extremism.
Sam Harris is widely and gleefully misquoted has having advocated this; you might look at his actual stance here, which far more closely resembles a plea of "let's not let it get to that point."
Hitchens certainly railed against "Islamofascism" often enough, especially after the fatwa on his friend Salman Rushdie, but I don't recall every seeing him advocate anything along the lines of "nuking the Middle East." Source please?
Otherwise, it's kind of like me saying "Shadowborn advocates rounding up all the atheists and burning them at the stake, because it's the only way to keep them from nuking the Middle East."
P.S. Claims that X person or group wants to nuke the Middle East are widespread. Here's another good one, equally spuriously claiming that it's "millions of Christians" who are advocating the same thing.
Stalin was hardly an atheist. He just happened to believe in the Classless society. If atheism gets saddled with him, well, there is no shortage of monstrous people on the theist side. Let's start with Oliver Cromwell.
Oliver Cromwell was pretty cool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oliver Cromwell was pretty cool.
I liked him in Twenty Years After.
James Cromwell is really cool, too. I'd kind of like to see him play Oliver sometime.
Secular humanism: The philosophy or life stance secular humanism (alternatively known by adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, social justice, philosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making.
No one is telling ANY woman that fear of rape is unjustified. We're telling this woman that the man who spoke to her in the elevator? He didn't rape her. If you equivocate a vile crime like rape with saying hi to someone in an elevator then no one is allowed to do anything ever.
Except that is exactly what Dawkins did. He said that she should stop worrying about being raped and instead be flattered that a man approached her when she was alone in an elevator. He said that western women should stop being so sensitive, because women in Muslim countries have it far worse. I'll link later, cause its really annoying on my iPad.
It's not that men need to stop talking to women. We just need to be cognizant that it can make them uncomfortable sometimes, especially when we unwittingly use creepy tactics. We also shouldn't blame them for feeling uncomfortable, when things like rape and sexual assault still happen a lot.
False accusations are less of a problem than the actual rapes. Every year, 200,000 women are sexually assaulted. Considering that 97% of rapists never serve any jail time, I think that's the bigger problem.
No he clarified his intent because other people had the same gonzo interpretation that you do, IT.
He said that she should stop worrying about being raped and instead be flattered that a man approached her when she was alone in an elevator. He said that western women should stop being so sensitive, because women in Muslim countries have it far worse. I'll link later, cause its really annoying on my iPad.
Yeah, I'd have to see that (the first sentence, that is). Because that's not what Conservapedia says. Or is it some other post?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stalin was hardly an atheist. He just happened to believe in the Classless society.
Also, when did believing in classless societies become a question of religious faith?
It seems that this has everything to do with feminism and nothing to do with atheism, except the fact that those involved were atheist.
This is the part that makes me roll my eyes: I do not see "atheist+" having a platform on the subject of atheism at all. Reading the articles upthread, they're not actually forming a sect of atheism, they're saying "we're atheist and vocally feminist, and if you're atheist and not vocally feminist, you are an a$~%$@!".
In doing so, I think they are doing disservice to both atheism and feminism. Neither of those (IMO worthy) causes benefit from a "movement" that merely labels everyone else as a+#*&**s.
It seems that this has everything to do with feminism and nothing to do with atheism, except the fact that those involved were atheist.
This is the part that makes me roll my eyes: I do not see "atheist+" having a platform on the subject of atheism at all. Reading the articles upthread, they're not actually forming a sect of atheism, they're saying "we're atheist and vocally feminist, and if you're atheist and not vocally feminist, you are an a#&$*!#".
In doing so, I think they are doing disservice to both atheism and feminism. Neither of those (IMO worthy) causes benefit from a "movement" that merely labels everyone else as a#~+&+#s.
Heck, there are sectarian groups that have split and formed their own groups over the issue concerning whether or not someone should be baptized (or whether should baptism should occur in the infancy stages or at the age where one should be able to make that choice).
Why should they have the luxury?
And yet they all profess worship to the same deity.
Why should the secular movement not be any different?
For every schism caused and a new group formed that splinters from the other, there's bound to be an a**hole involved that instigated it.
Human, all too human.
Called it, you hoi polloi!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stalin was hardly an atheist. He just happened to believe in the Classless society. If atheism gets saddled with him, well, there is no shortage of monstrous people on the theist side. Let's start with Oliver Cromwell.Stalin was a Fascist who wraapped himself in Communist rhetoric. He certainly did not practice a classless society, he had his own vassalage beneath him.
Stalin was the eldest surviving son of a Georgian cobbler.
What does any of this have to do with his religious beliefs? Which were, indeed, atheist. And, although not a trained psychiatrist, I don't think his "crazyness" was anything more than the regular sociopathic megalomania and paranoia that most brutal dictators exhibit.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heck, there are sectarian groups that have split and formed their own groups over the issue concerning whether or not someone should be baptized (or whether should baptism should occur in the infancy stages or at the age where one should be able to make that choice).
Why should they have the luxury?
"The novel further describes an intra-Lilliputian quarrel over the practice of breaking eggs. Traditionally, Lilliputians broke boiled eggs on the larger end; a few generations ago, an Emperor of Lilliput, the Present Emperor's great-grandfather, had decreed that all eggs be broken on the smaller end after he cut himself breaking the egg on the larger end. The differences between Big-Endians (those who broke their eggs at the larger end) and Little-Endians had given rise to "six rebellions... wherein one Emperor lost his life, and another his crown". The Lilliputian religion says an egg should be broken on the convenient end, which is now interpreted by the Lilliputians as the smaller end."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sam Harris is widely and gleefully misquoted has having advocated this; you might look at his actual stance here, which far more closely resembles a plea of "let's not let it get to that point."
I've seen his defense and have followed the back-and-forth between Harris and Hedges for a while now. It still chills me when he talks about a preemptive nuclear strike in the event of an Islamic regime gaining nuclear capability. He appears to be operating under the presumption that if that were the case then the use of said nuclear weaponry would be a given.
Hitchens certainly railed against "Islamofascism" often enough, especially after the fatwa on his friend Salman Rushdie, but I don't recall every seeing him advocate anything along the lines of "nuking the Middle East." Source please?
I'll withdraw the claim. I was scrabbling for the name of someone that had spoken in support of Harris' comments from The End of Faith and I erroneously recalled it being Hitchens. Now I'm going to be distracted trying to dig up who it was in the first place...
My point being that one doesn't have to be religious to be crazy wrong. Hitchens beat the drum in support of the Iraq war the whole way through, despite the lack of WMDs which were the lynchpin in his agreement with the action. Hell, I've met an atheist who refuses to acknowledge we landed men on the moon, despite the mountains of evidence that we did. Being unreasonable in the face of facts is a universal human trait.
72 virgins!? Why would i want to downgrade?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not that men need to stop talking to women. We just need to be cognizant that it can make them uncomfortable sometimes, especially when we unwittingly use creepy tactics. We also shouldn't blame them for feeling uncomfortable, when things like rape and sexual assault still happen a lot.
This is the problem.... The man in question in elevatorgate had no ill intentions, he probably had spent all night building up his courage to ask Rebecca Watson out and wanted to do so where he would not suffer humiliation from his peers should he be turned down. So he asked her where he felt safe not knowing it was where Rebecca felt unsafe. Unfortunately this guy has now been used as an example of a potential rapist and he probably feels terrible, far worse than if he had failed in front of his peers.
I would suggest that men should stop talking to women and let women initiate relationships. As men are unwittingly threatening in what they do it is better to miss out on a relationship then be labeled a mysoginist, chauvinist or potential rapist.
Oliver Cromwell was pretty cool.Introducing freedom of religion into England: Awesome.
Genocide: Significantly less awesome.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would suggest that men should stop talking to women and let women initiate relationships. As men are unwittingly threatening in what they do it is better to miss out on a relationship then be labeled a mysoginist, chauvinist or potential rapist.
And this is why Dawkins gets involved. Hes a man that doesn't like malarky or sacred cows (a position you sort of have to have to rail against religion) and this is a lot of the same nonsense.
Men cannot, and cannot be expected to, know what womens feelings ARE, much less look into the future and see what they might be. As far as I can tell the woman had a complete over reaction to a normal conversation. I know its politically incorrect but it is possible for women to be wrong too sometimes. Even if dawkins were the pope of atheism, it doesn't even mean that He or atheism is misogynistic.
I would suggest that men should stop talking to women and let women initiate relationships. As men are unwittingly threatening in what they do it is better to miss out on a relationship then be labeled a mysoginist, chauvinist or potential rapist.And this is why Dawkins gets involved. Hes a man that doesn't like malarky or sacred cows (a position you sort of have to have to rail against religion) and this is a lot of the same nonsense.
Men cannot, and cannot be expected to, know what womens feelings ARE, much less look into the future and see what they might be. As far as I can tell the woman had a complete over reaction to a normal conversation. I know its politically incorrect but it is possible for women to be wrong too sometimes. Even if dawkins were the pope of atheism, it doesn't even mean that He or atheism is misogynistic.
Oh I agree - you cant have Feminism and "Romance"... To initiate an relationship one party has to make an advance, and until the feminist movement comes up with a set of guidelines on how a man should go about it then I would be advising all my single male friends not to bother.
Maybe we should issue all guys with these Declaration of Romantic Intent.
I would suggest that men should stop talking to women and let women initiate relationships. As men are unwittingly threatening in what they do it is better to miss out on a relationship then be labeled a mysoginist, chauvinist or potential rapist.And this is why Dawkins gets involved. Hes a man that doesn't like malarky or sacred cows (a position you sort of have to have to rail against religion) and this is a lot of the same nonsense.
Men cannot, and cannot be expected to, know what womens feelings ARE, much less look into the future and see what they might be. As far as I can tell the woman had a complete over reaction to a normal conversation. I know its politically incorrect but it is possible for women to be wrong too sometimes. Even if dawkins were the pope of atheism, it doesn't even mean that He or atheism is misogynistic.
Really? Women needing to feel safe is a sacred cow? Stop seeing an elevator as a "place where your friends can't see you fail" and rather as a "place where person B cannot escape from person A". In fact I can't think of anyone I know, man or woman, who would enjoy a stranger starting a conversation about anything in an elevator.
Oh I agree - you cant have Feminism and "Romance"... To initiate an relationship one party has to make an advance, and until the feminist movement comes up with a set of guidelines on how a man should go about it then I would be advising all my single male friends not to bother.
I am lucky my wife pursued me, I was so shy around women I was interested in I had to leave the room because I was so afraid I would make a fool of myself.
Huh? I'm failing to see how romance and feminism are mutually exclusive. I'm also not sure why we need specific guidelines in order to interact in a romantic framework.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? Women needing to feel safe is a sacred cow? Stop seeing an elevator as a "place where your friends can't see you fail" and rather as a "place where person B cannot escape from person A". In fact I can't think of anyone I know, man or woman, who would enjoy a stranger starting a conversation about anything in an elevator.I would suggest that men should stop talking to women and let women initiate relationships. As men are unwittingly threatening in what they do it is better to miss out on a relationship then be labeled a mysoginist, chauvinist or potential rapist.And this is why Dawkins gets involved. Hes a man that doesn't like malarky or sacred cows (a position you sort of have to have to rail against religion) and this is a lot of the same nonsense.
Men cannot, and cannot be expected to, know what womens feelings ARE, much less look into the future and see what they might be. As far as I can tell the woman had a complete over reaction to a normal conversation. I know its politically incorrect but it is possible for women to be wrong too sometimes. Even if dawkins were the pope of atheism, it doesn't even mean that He or atheism is misogynistic.
I have plenty of men and women start conversations with me in an elevator - Nice weather we are having, it looks like rain, If I am wearing a Wallabies Rugby jersey I get Kiwi's laughing at me and telling me how much they hate Quade Cooper... G'day what floor are you going to. Or hey can you press 11.
The only place I don't like conversations is the toilet.
Huh? I'm failing to see how romance and feminism are mutually exclusive. I'm also not sure why we need specific guidelines in order to interact in a romantic framework.
All people should be equal, the current western way of initiating intimacy is paternalistic. Women don't have a say in the way a man approaches a woman. Until women can give guidelines in how they should be approached and (this would have to be on an individual basis) then any attempt by a man to initiate a romantic relationship is aggression unless the woman has given prior consent.
I would suggest that men should stop talking to women and let women initiate relationships. As men are unwittingly threatening in what they do it is better to miss out on a relationship then be labeled a mysoginist, chauvinist or potential rapist.And this is why Dawkins gets involved. Hes a man that doesn't like malarky or sacred cows (a position you sort of have to have to rail against religion) and this is a lot of the same nonsense.
Men cannot, and cannot be expected to, know what womens feelings ARE, much less look into the future and see what they might be. As far as I can tell the woman had a complete over reaction to a normal conversation. I know its politically incorrect but it is possible for women to be wrong too sometimes. Even if dawkins were the pope of atheism, it doesn't even mean that He or atheism is misogynistic.
I don't think she was saying that this guy was actually a rapist or even had any bad intentions, but that the situation he put her in was a threatening one, whether he intended that or not. It seems like over reaction to you, but she didn't know his intent or how he'd take a refusal and women get raped in situations like that.
It's not about knowing her feelings, it's about not backing her into a corner where she can't get away and then and only then propositioning her. I know it didn't seem like that to him, but it did to her.
Talk to women you know about that situation. It's very hard for a man to comprehend. I get it intellectually, but not on a gut level. Men are dangerous to women. All men could be potential rapists. Overwhelmingly, most of us are not, but they can't tell which ones are harmless. It's not fair to the rest of us, but women trusting us blindly is stupid.
That is why men should stop altogether.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No I agree and I was being a bit trollish. It just gets very frustrating... Because I see the hypocrisy of sexism in the workplace and I get fed up. I have heard female execs refer to men as penises (as in how many penises do we have on this project - the answer was none they are all useless, followed by what about such and such oh he is gay so he doesn't count). I have also been accidentally included in an email by a female staff member who described what she would like to do to a young male intern in graphic detail, then threatened by her when she realised that she had sent it to me.
Women are no better than men they are just more subtle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? Women needing to feel safe is a sacred cow?
The idea that if the woman doesn't feel safe it must be the man's fault is: that womens feelings are ALWAYS justified.
Stop seeing an elevator as a "place where your friends can't see you fail" and rather as a "place where person B cannot escape from person A".
Wrong floor. Press button. Walk out.
In fact I can't think of anyone I know, man or woman, who would enjoy a stranger starting a conversation about anything in an elevator.
I've seen more than a few conversations in there. Weather decor, etc.
Huh? I'm failing to see how romance and feminism are mutually exclusive. I'm also not sure why we need specific guidelines in order to interact in a romantic framework.
Man cannot take any action that would make a woman feel uncomfortable
Any action towards women might make a woman feel uncomfortable
Therefore the man can't take any action towards women.
|
You can still take her advice and not proposition strangers in the middle of the night when alone in the elevator.
And she can take other peoples advice and tell the people that actually do that how it makes her feel when they do it, like a regular adult. Because while going and posting it on a blog may help some people realize it could be inappropriate, it sure doesn't help the poor sap that did it in the first place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've had plenty of interesting conversations in elevators. It's just getting past that initial 'don't make eye contact don't make eye contact' urge that is the hurdle.You can still take her advice and not proposition strangers in the middle of the night when alone in the elevator.
That he was propositioning her is her spin on what could have genuinely been an invitation to share a cup of coffee. Let's not make assumptions about his intentions (like Skepchick is doing).
Reminds me of this for some reason...
Then the best advice would be not to engage women and let them engage you. I prefer not to have my motives judged and I prefer not to be thought of as a potential rapist. To that end I am happy to avoid talking to women. Infact if it is me and a woman waiting for an elevator from now on I will let her go first and get another elivator as I would rather not be thought of in such away
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? Women needing to feel safe is a sacred cow?The idea that if the woman doesn't feel safe it must be the man's fault is: that womens feelings are ALWAYS justified.
Stop seeing an elevator as a "place where your friends can't see you fail" and rather as a "place where person B cannot escape from person A".Wrong floor. Press button. Walk out.
Grab hand. Push stop button between floors.
Or simply stand between her and the buttons.It's an enclosed space in tight quarters with no one else around. It's a dangerous situation.
Again, don't listen to me. Talk to women you know about this. Listen to what they tell you.
And if those things had happened to Skepchick you'd see zero of us defending this unnamed man. But they didn't. But that makes no difference to new feminism. He should know better than to speak to an unchaperoned woman. The cad!
All men could be potential rapists. Overwhelmingly, most of us are not, but they can't tell which ones are harmless.
By the same tokem, all women could potentially be mass murderers. Overwhelmingly, most of them are not, but we can't tell which ones are harmless. Better put very strict limits on what public places, and under what circumstances, it is potentially OK for them to speak to us.
It doesn't make a difference what his intentions were. She quoted what he said. (I'm assuming she reported it accurately.) If a stranger asks you back to their hotel room at 4AM for coffee, you really have to assume they're going to make a pass at you. Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. Maybe they're completely harmless. Maybe they'll assume that because you agreed to, that you knew what they wanted and have already agreed to sex. It's a sad state of affairs, but that would be risky as hell to do. As I said before, women don't dare assume that men are harmless. It's too dangerous.
So of the possible responses:
1. "Yes" would be stupid, we all agree.2. "No" would be justified, and OK. But if that's all she did, there would be no scandal.
3. Yelling "NO MEANS NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" and blowing the rape whistle (as she symbolically did) and making sure the entire blogosphere is aware of this DANGEROUS STALKER!!!!! (as she actually did) is something of an overreaction, to my way of thinking.
4. Shooting him is obviously inappropriate, unless you're in Texas.