]For every rapist there are thousands of people that never would, but scary numbers!!!!Citation needed.
In South Africa, more than one in three men admit to being rapists. Then there's this, 6% of the men surveyed freely admitted to acts of rape; I suspect there are other men who participated in the study who have committed acts of rape, but didn't admit it.
So, no, it's not "thousands" of non-rapists out there for every rapist; it's not "hundreds" of non-rapists for every rapist. In fact, it's not even "dozens" of non-rapists for every rapist. A man who is also a rapist is, sadly, quite common.
You can not apply South African society which is a multi layered mix of traditional African cultures with a Dutch and British colonial veneer to Western Society. That is cherry picking racism and cultural elitism all wrapped up in a massive package of ignorance. It is a straw man so huge that some ancient celts are going to come around and put some animals and enemy captives in it and set it on fire for Beltane.
You should be ashamed of your self.
In the case of South Africa, that seems more indicative of a culture problem than a gender problem.
You can not apply South African society which is a multi layered mix of traditional African cultures with a Dutch and British colonial veneer to Western Society.
Maybe that's why there is a second study of Western (American, I presume) college students cited?
Rather than attacking my sources and statistics, how about providing some of your own showing that I am wrong in my conclusion that such a high number of men are rapists, hmm?
Also, forgive me, but I wasn't talking about just "Western" society. Furthermore, according to that article, 1 in 4 women admit to having been rapes, a number not much higher than what's reported in the United States, either. Rape is a global problem, and people shouldn't just dismiss that study just because it's Africa.
Maybe that's why there is a second study of Western (American, I presume) college students cited?
You can not apply South African society which is a multi layered mix of traditional African cultures with a Dutch and British colonial veneer to Western Society.
I dont dispute use of the second study it is terrible and sad, any number of number of rapists is too many.
I object to cherry picking and the use of statistics out of context.
Think about this according to your statistics you cherry picked one in 3 of the male posters in this thread is a rapist.
I am sure you are not accusing anybody but I am sure you would understand how upsetting that is.
|
Maybe that's why there is a second study of Western (American, I presume) college students cited?
You can not apply South African society which is a multi layered mix of traditional African cultures with a Dutch and British colonial veneer to Western Society.I dont dispute use of the second study it is terrible and sad, any number of number of rapists is too many.
I object to cherry picking and the use of statistics out of context.
Think about this according to your statistics you cherry picked one in 3 of the male posters in this thread is a rapist.
I am sure you are not accusing anybody but I am sure you would understand how upsetting that is.
Some people do this crap to prove they are right. Might as well use a source from a war zone to prove how violence is out of control, rather than a typical year in Sweden. Not at all bias or disingenuous at all......
Think about this according to your statistics you cherry picked one in 3 of the male posters in this thread is a rapist.
Your pronouns aren't matching your quotations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"1) Have you ever attempted unsuccessfully to have intercourse with an adult by force or threat of force?
2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone who did not want you to because they were too intoxicated to resist?
3) Have you ever had intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
4) Have you ever had oral intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?"
What is vague about any of this?
|
|
Maybe that's why there is a second study of Western (American, I presume) college students cited?
You can not apply South African society which is a multi layered mix of traditional African cultures with a Dutch and British colonial veneer to Western Society.I dont dispute use of the second study it is terrible and sad, any number of number of rapists is too many.
I object to cherry picking and the use of statistics out of context.
Think about this according to your statistics you cherry picked one in 3 of the male posters in this thread is a rapist.
I am sure you are not accusing anybody but I am sure you would understand how upsetting that is.
So it's not 1 in 3, as in the South African study. The US study suggests ~6%. It's of college students, so maybe that's a population more likely to? OTOH, it's self-reported so it could be low.
Either way, it's not "For every rapist there are thousands of people that never would". More like, for every rapists there are dozen that never would. Of course, you might also suspect that the rapists are more likely to aggressively come on to women, so for those that are hitting on you unprovoked or asking you to come up to their hotel room in the middle of the night, the odds are probably better.
But hey, they're probably harmless, wouldn't want to risk offending anyone by being cautious.
6% of the population of america is how many? How much is 94%? total is 314,310,000 by one site i just checked so 6% of that is 1,885,860 if my math is correct. so312424140 non rapists. 165.666 non rapists per rapist if my math is correct. if that study has correct math at 6%
Yes men feeling uncomfortable with dominating women is a fact but we live in a society that does not accept the existence of a submissive male. We need a mens equality movement, men deserve a choice in life not to follow the dominate alpha male career first stereotype, and not feel like crap for doing anything else.Sure do! In fact, it's called third-wave feminism. It's pretty awesome.
Speaking of "feminazis", I just want a reason to post this.
Agreed with Third Wave Feminism. But I don't care for their empowerment logo. Kinda looks like fisting and I mean in a "Rule 34" way.
Cartoon paranoia stereotype = lulz.
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
Of course you had no idea about that.
Live and learn.
|
|
6% of the population of america is how many? How much is 94%? total is 314,310,000 by one site i just checked so 6% of that is 1,885,860 if my math is correct. so312424140 non rapists. 165.666 non rapists per rapist if my math is correct. if that study has correct math at 6%I can't be bothered to figure out your math since your approach makes no sense.
6% of males. So 6 rapists for every 100 males. 1 rapist for every 100/6 males. 100/6 = 16.667, so that's 1 rapist for every 17 males.Not exactly thousands, is it?
Either way, and i still doubt the 6%. still paranoid if you ask me. I could get robbed and assaulted at any time but that doesn't control my life nor should a fear of every man being a rapist cause crippling fear in women.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what's the ironic thing about all of this.
When females make an appearance in this thread concerning the topic and offering their opinion, and then a male discredits them as being wrong about them, what does that signal?
Nobody knows the intent. All we can do is assume. Regardless, it was 4 am and it was an invitation back to the room. By a stranger. In an elevator.
It really doesn't have anything to do with fem-nazi stereotypes or males being forced into submission.
It's called getting a clue card and if the majority of females chime in on how they feel when they get that offer, maybe there's ... I dunno ... a semblance of truth to it?
Stop being so priggish with the defensive attitudes. Woman relayed an awkward experience. She didn't out the guy. People dog-piled and came to their own conclusions. "oh, she must be one of THOSE EBIL FEMINISTS!11"
C'mon, guys. Seriously.
Wake up. With a cup of 4 in the morning coffee if necessary.
The longer this thread keeps going, the easier this OP's point is being validated.
I did not "cherry pick" that South African study. I googled "study men who admit to rape" (only I didn't search for that exact phrase, of course), and articles about that study were by far the most common on the first page of hits, and the second result. (The first hit was an article about the other study I cited; I'm unable to find out where that study was conducted).
Andrew R, while some might think that "approach[ing] girl who has had anything to drink you are a rapist", that's clearly not the definition used by the study I cited. I don't know why you keep trying to move the goalpost here when it's perfectly clear what questions were asked in the study.
|
|
Either way, and i still doubt the 6%. still paranoid if you ask me. I could get robbed and assaulted at any time but that doesn't control my life nor should a fear of every man being a rapist cause crippling fear in women.6% of the population of america is how many? How much is 94%? total is 314,310,000 by one site i just checked so 6% of that is 1,885,860 if my math is correct. so312424140 non rapists. 165.666 non rapists per rapist if my math is correct. if that study has correct math at 6%I can't be bothered to figure out your math since your approach makes no sense.
6% of males. So 6 rapists for every 100 males. 1 rapist for every 100/6 males. 100/6 = 16.667, so that's 1 rapist for every 17 males.Not exactly thousands, is it?
It may be a little high, but even at half as much, it's still a lot. And, as I said before, of those making the unwanted advances, I'll bet the percentage is higher. That's a selection bias in the wrong direction.
And we're not talking about crippling fear. Women still go out and do things. They still date. They still let men into their houses and their lives. They just have to be more careful than men usually are.
It would be nice if the men who aren't racists could help out, not just by not forcing themselves on women, but by trying to recognize when they're coming across as creepy or threatening and not doing that.That's all I've been saying. That's all Rebecca Watson said.
Yeah but look at our own little gamer tribe. MANY are odd and creepy and cannot help it and would never notice. and that is just in day to day contact with their own kind let alone some woman that has no understanding of them
I guess all I meant is that they wouldn't have to fail at resisting if the "didn't want you to" criterion was taken seriously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've suggested a few times asking the women in your life about this topic. Maybe point them to Rebecca Watson's original video blog post. Not so much the Dawkins stuff or even this thread.
Because really, a bunch of men debating whether a woman has the right to feel threatened or whether she overreacted is pretty the problem right there.
I've asked a couple of the women in my life and most of them responded, "why would I want to be in the same movement with Christopher Hitchens? That war pig f*+%."
|
|
You know what's the ironic thing about all of this.
When females make an appearance in this thread concerning the topic and offering their opinion, and then a male discredits them as being wrong about them, what does that signal?
Nobody knows the intent. All we can do is assume. Regardless, it was 4 am and it was an invitation back to the room. By a stranger. In an elevator.
It really doesn't have anything to do with fem-nazi stereotypes or males being forced into submission.
It's called getting a clue card and if the majority of females chime in on how they feel when they get that offer, maybe there's ... I dunno ... a semblance of truth to it?
Stop being so priggish with the defensive attitudes. Woman relayed an awkward experience. She didn't out the guy. People dog-piled and came to their own conclusions. "oh, she must be one of THOSE EBIL FEMINISTS!11"
C'mon, guys. Seriously.
Wake up. With a cup of 4 in the morning coffee if necessary.
The longer this thread keeps going, the easier this OP's point is being validated.
Yes. This is important. I meant to say this sooner.
We're mostly a bunch of guys debating this. A few women have been here and commented and I think every one was on the same side. That means something.
I've suggested a few times asking the women in your life about this topic. Maybe point them to Rebecca Watson's original video blog post. Not so much the Dawkins stuff or even this thread.
Because really, a bunch of men debating whether a woman has the right to feel threatened or whether she overreacted is pretty the problem right there.
men have a place and deserve a voice just as whites deserve a voice in the race debate. we all have a side and mostly equally valid input.
|
|
I've asked a couple of the women in my life and most of them responded, "why would I want to be in the same movement with Christopher Hitchens? That war pig f%@*."I've suggested a few times asking the women in your life about this topic. Maybe point them to Rebecca Watson's original video blog post. Not so much the Dawkins stuff or even this thread.
Because really, a bunch of men debating whether a woman has the right to feel threatened or whether she overreacted is pretty the problem right there.
Still trying to figure out why it is a movement at all
men have a place and deserve a voice just as whites deserve a voice in the race debate. we all have a side and mostly equally valid input.You know what's the ironic thing about all of this.
When females make an appearance in this thread concerning the topic and offering their opinion, and then a male discredits them as being wrong about them, what does that signal?
Nobody knows the intent. All we can do is assume. Regardless, it was 4 am and it was an invitation back to the room. By a stranger. In an elevator.
It really doesn't have anything to do with fem-nazi stereotypes or males being forced into submission.
It's called getting a clue card and if the majority of females chime in on how they feel when they get that offer, maybe there's ... I dunno ... a semblance of truth to it?
Stop being so priggish with the defensive attitudes. Woman relayed an awkward experience. She didn't out the guy. People dog-piled and came to their own conclusions. "oh, she must be one of THOSE EBIL FEMINISTS!11"
C'mon, guys. Seriously.
Wake up. With a cup of 4 in the morning coffee if necessary.
The longer this thread keeps going, the easier this OP's point is being validated.
Yes. This is important. I meant to say this sooner.
We're mostly a bunch of guys debating this. A few women have been here and commented and I think every one was on the same side. That means something.
I've suggested a few times asking the women in your life about this topic. Maybe point them to Rebecca Watson's original video blog post. Not so much the Dawkins stuff or even this thread.
Because really, a bunch of men debating whether a woman has the right to feel threatened or whether she overreacted is pretty the problem right there.
It's the mostly out of the equally valid input that I'll take issue with.
|
|
It's the mostly out of the equally valid input that I'll take issue with.men have a place and deserve a voice just as whites deserve a voice in the race debate. we all have a side and mostly equally valid input.You know what's the ironic thing about all of this.
When females make an appearance in this thread concerning the topic and offering their opinion, and then a male discredits them as being wrong about them, what does that signal?
Nobody knows the intent. All we can do is assume. Regardless, it was 4 am and it was an invitation back to the room. By a stranger. In an elevator.
It really doesn't have anything to do with fem-nazi stereotypes or males being forced into submission.
It's called getting a clue card and if the majority of females chime in on how they feel when they get that offer, maybe there's ... I dunno ... a semblance of truth to it?
Stop being so priggish with the defensive attitudes. Woman relayed an awkward experience. She didn't out the guy. People dog-piled and came to their own conclusions. "oh, she must be one of THOSE EBIL FEMINISTS!11"
C'mon, guys. Seriously.
Wake up. With a cup of 4 in the morning coffee if necessary.
The longer this thread keeps going, the easier this OP's point is being validated.
Yes. This is important. I meant to say this sooner.
We're mostly a bunch of guys debating this. A few women have been here and commented and I think every one was on the same side. That means something.
I've suggested a few times asking the women in your life about this topic. Maybe point them to Rebecca Watson's original video blog post. Not so much the Dawkins stuff or even this thread.
Because really, a bunch of men debating whether a woman has the right to feel threatened or whether she overreacted is pretty the problem right there.
mostly because some on each side will take it to a nutty place and go to extremes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've asked a couple of the women in my life and most of them responded, "why would I want to be in the same movement with Christopher Hitchens? That war pig f&~$."I've suggested a few times asking the women in your life about this topic. Maybe point them to Rebecca Watson's original video blog post. Not so much the Dawkins stuff or even this thread.
Because really, a bunch of men debating whether a woman has the right to feel threatened or whether she overreacted is pretty the problem right there.
Q: What does Hitchens and God have in common?
A: They're dead! #infernalphilosopherjoke
Ha-HAW!
Dishonoring the dead, that's a sin! :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When females make an appearance in this thread concerning the topic and offering their opinion, and then a male discredits them as being wrong about them, what does that signal?
By itself, nothing. If, for example, the male largely agrees with the said females, but also actually sees some differences that are being painted over with an overly broad brush (ahem), he must be a privileged misogynist for not agreeing with the whole narrative 100% down the line?
Imagine we're discussing the Jyllands-Posten affair instead. Some Muslims get on the thread and say, yes, of course the pig cartoonists deserve to die. Pretend I reply that yes, the cartoons were offensive, but do not justify murder as a reaction. Am I therefore an Islamophobe for saying so? After all, these are actual Muslims saying that, so they must be entirely correct?
NOTE: I am not saying that calling this guy (and most other guys in the world for that matter) a sexist pig is in any way equivalent to advocating murder. I am saying that very vocal members of an offended group might have many things correct, but be drawing erroneous conclusions and/or be overlooking other considerations at the same time. Very few of us are always correct about everything, and very few topics are susceptible to an "all or nothing" approach when it comes to accurate analysis.
So I feel this whole "agree with our narrative 100%, even when we're imputing motives that people may not have had, or be labeled an evil mysoginist!" thing doesn't help anything. It shuts down communication instead of fostering it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just so we are clear.
Women have the right to be concerned for their safety when they are put into positions where they feel threatend. I don't dispute that at all.
I feel sadened that I am instantly perceived as a threat by 51% of the population. Being a person who is concerned for the feelings of others, I will happily take another lift or sit in a other carriage if a woman is by her self.
I don't see how using statistics from South Africa is pertinent to a discussion on how a primarily north American western European social movement is having a schisim due to gender relations and hence my accusation of cherry picking for an a emotive response.
I don't see the how an idiot who committed a social faux pas and then went away when he was told to can be considered a reason to form a new club. Yes we expect better of skeptics and atheists because of thier education and awareness of the "paternalistic" nature of religion. Unfortunately as these people will point out to you are human and make mistakes.
I find the whole A+ thing to be elitist and the motives of the people who are founding it to make out that they are a better human beings then those who are not part of thier exclusive club.
As for feminism like I said before I am a supporter, like my mother pointed out to me I could never be a proper feminist because I have never suffered oppression as a woman has so would never truly understand.
^^^^^^What Kirth said.
I'd also like to point out that many of the "misogynist side" in the thread actively disagree with each other on some aspects. This isn't a binary situation.
There are ways to meet people other than harassing total strangers. I mention several. There are more. But, fine. I'm not going to win you over here. I don't have any more arguments. Just please, when you're trying to chat up total strangers, think about how it might look to them. Try to make it as non-intimidating as possible, don't corner them where they can't get away and take even mild no as a no.And plenty of other relationships, long and short term, have started between strangers. You only want people to make passes at people they know, but you don't want anyone to try to introduce themselves. Its a catch 22.
No. They met in high school. I have never said that's the only place people should meet. I said it's an example of a place where it's acceptable to hit on strangers. And not all bars either.
theJeff, I really have to wonder if you know how people hook up.
At least half of the long term relationships whose origins I know of started with one party walking up and randomly talking to someone who had no idea who they were. In every case, the provocateur first waited until the other person was isolated so they could talk in private - because no one wants to be rejected in front of other people.
I already mentioned my grandparents meeting at a bus stop.
My father was on freshmen move in to "scout out the chicks" when he met my mom.
My uncle use the pickup line "members of your family have seen me naked" on my aunt to win her over (it was true). She had no idea who he was.
Another uncle picked up his wife while she was working as a flight attendant whose flight he happened to be on.
My cousin just got married - met her husband randomly at a business conference where he asked her out.
People meet in random places.
As for if this guy waited until he could talk to her alone - if he was looking to pick her up of course he did. Its way easier to build up the courage to ask someone out when they are alone. I can't think of a single person I have ever seen ask someone out in front of another person. But I have seen people leave a group to follow someone else who just broke off of theirs many, many times.
For every rapist there are thousands of people that never would, but scary numbers!!!!Except your statistics are misleading, for every black person who steals $108, there are 6 white people stealing $100.No, I'm illustrating that even when we think we're being reasonable, other people might not interpret it that way. Be cognizant of what your doing and where you're doing it.
I don't have a good statistic, but I'm guessing the majority of us weren't born as a product of rape. Therefore, a significant number of relationships can be started without being creepy or putting the woman in a situation where she is afraid of rape.
The fact that it does occasionally happen (that women become afraid) is not a reason to end all contact with women. It is a reason to be aware of sometimes our behavior communicates intentions we don't have.
Would you tell minorities to look at the crime statistics and be more aware that they may seem like a criminal if they are not very careful in how they look and act?
Would you say it is fare for whites to look at crime state (as a woman looks at rape stats) and be suspicious of blacks committing crimes against them AND BE JUSTIFIED in that suspicion because the stats are accurate? Should I look at every black customer as a potential thief then if a woman should see every man as a potential rapist?
THIS is what some of you are very much advocating, but would never DARE in a racial context...... but bashing men is a-ok
If only 1 man in 2,000 were an attacker, that would mean on average that each man who committed a sexual assault would have assaulted 5 different women every year. On average, per year.
Since women are much more likely to be sexually assaulted by someone they know, would that mean that most of them know the same men?
At least half of the long term relationships whose origins I know of started with one party walking up and randomly talking to someone who had no idea who they were.
In this case, my understanding is that her talk was apparently about how a number of women felt like they shouldn't bother coming to these conventions, because of all the geeks trying to pick them up (which will happen more often when you have a ratio of like 5 men to every female) (whether any of them avidly attended, say, basketball conventions for the same reason hasn't been mentioned).
I wasn't in attendance, so I don't know if it was some kind of universal plea to make these events pickup free as a rule, or just stating the case, or what, but even I have to admit that it's sort of incredibly loopy (or just plain insanely brazen) to listen to a lady give a talk on that and then immediately turn around and try to pick her up. Which is part of the reason I'm pretty lenient in not imputing sexual motives to the guy.
It also makes me think that unwanted sexual overtures were at the forefront of everyone's mind because of the topic of talk, so any marginally questionable situation would of course immediately be interpreted to be some sort of evil sexist dominance ploy, even if that wasn't actually the case. We're all susceptible to confirmation bias: males, females, atheists, religious folks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The misogyny comes into play that a woman can't appear to be allowed to have a right for her own safety when someone asks her in an elevator at 4 in the morning to join him in his room for coffee when he has not had any prior interaction with her.
How dare she questions the man's motive. Bad female.
She doesn't KNOW THE MOTIVE. IT DOESN'T MATTER.
A number of you are projecting onto yourself for your own experiences. But you're not the female.
As for me? I don't care who the hell you are. Male or female. If you're speaking to me for the first time in a hotel elevator at 4 in the morning, I'm not going to your room. You may have the purest or noblest of intent, but I don't know that. I don't know what to assume. The only thing I know is that you're a stranger creating an awkward folkway and I'm not going to risk placing myself into a situation that I'm not certain that I'll be safe.
I'll be polite. Decline. And head to my own room.
I might even share the experience as being awkward with someone.
And if I were at a certain convention that covered such topics, I'd point out the irony, too.
I realize this isn't a binary conversation regarding misogyny. That comes in when one tells the female that she's wrong for what she's thinking. That she should take the man at face value and head up to the room for coffee at 4 in the morning. Maybe the'll discuss her lecture that was she holding at the convention. Maybe.
Or maybe the nature of self-preservation will kick in.
The new "social club" isn't being formed because of that guy.
The "social club" is being formed because people are trolling and ridiculing and haranguing that woman for sharing her feelings about how she thought it was weird she was getting that offer in the elevator.
To go to his room.
At four in the morning.
I like reading Dawkins' materials, but he's kind of like certain bands whose music I listen to. They're boorish and I doubt I'd want to converse with them in real life as it'll likely add to my disillusion. His Muslim woman remark shows his disconnect just as much as Democrats paint that brush about how Romney is trying to "understand" the middle class and their problems.
Atheism actually has a lot of sub-groups that wish to identify themselves in different manners beyond the commonality holding the precept that there is no God.
Antitheism. Nontheism. Igtheism. Just to name a couple that comes to mind. Some may say they're all one in the same on the face value of a coin. But I know someone that will beg off the similarity and note the distinctions between them.
That's like saying that under the Christian sectarian umbrella that all Baptists are following the same commonality. But find me that Baptist community that wants to claim ecumenism with Westboro. ;-)
I like your concept of the Jyllands-Posten affair, Kirth. But it's apples and oranges. You are not Islamophobic for making your remark. You're more concerned for the safety of those individual(s) that are being threatened and their security compromised.
Whereas we should be concerned about the women's.
Thejeff is right, though. Some of you should be asking your female partner what would be her initial reaction if she got onto an elevator at 4 in the morning and a stranger asks her up to his room for some coffee. What will be her response?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also like to point out that many of the "misogynist side" in the thread actively disagree with each other on some aspects. This isn't a binary situation.
I have agreed with most of what KG had to say (he sums up my position nicely) a lot but not all of Meat Races point of view and I think that some what Andrew R had to say was salient I do disagree with or did find large portion of his statements a bit to far from my point of view.
So don't tar me with the same brush and don't conflate my opinions of those with others.
Other than that aren't we all lucky that we live in countries where we are free to speak our minds without fear of being imprisoned or disappeared. Please remember that when people are arguing with you and you wish they weren't allowed to speak at all.
People meet in random places.
As for if this guy waited until he could talk to her alone - if he was looking to pick her up of course he did. Its way easier to build up the courage to ask someone out when they are alone. I can't think of a single person I have ever seen ask someone out in front of another person. But I have seen people leave a group to follow someone else who just broke off of theirs many, many times.
It sure is easy at times to follow someone to just broke off the group so as to not get "blocked." Happens in a bar scene frequently. But usually it involves some chit-chatting in the confines of the bar premises.
Not in an elevator (which is more of a confined space and not having as an open place to retreat like in a bar) at 4 in the morning to go:
Hey, I just met you
And this is crazy
Wanna come to my room
For coffee, maybe?
That she should take the man at face value and head up to the room for coffee at 4 in the morning.
Never said that, or anything close to it. Quite the opposite.
For the record, I said it would be stupid for her to go to his room.
I said she was right to be nervous about being approached like that.
I also said that I would be nervous about being approached like that.
None of that justifies the repeated claims that he treated her as a sex object rather than a person.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of you should be asking your female partner what would be her initial reaction if she got onto an elevator at 4 in the morning and a stranger asks her up to his room for some coffee. What will be her response?
I did that. She said the situation would never have come up. Something like, "It's 4 in the morning and the guy gets on the elevator alone with me? I say, 'sorry I forgot my keys,' and get back off the elevator. Probably he means no harm, but it's easy for me to be safe."
She also made it clear that in the situation as it did play out, it's not right to raise a stink about the guy supposedly "treating you like an object." He was polite, he accepted the "no," there's no reason to record a video imputing motives to him, or to hold a grudge.
Mrs Gersen is pretty non-judgmental though; she puts up with me, after all.
That she should take the man at face value and head up to the room for coffee at 4 in the morning.Wow, thank you for completely ignoring everything I've said so far, except to reference it just enough to make sure I know I'm one of the "bad guys." Bravo.
For the record, I said it would be stupid for her to go to his room.
I said she was right to be nervous about being approached like that.
I also said that I would be nervous about being approached like that.None of that justifies the repeated claims that he treated her as a sex object rather than a person.
Au contraire.
I think you're ignoring everything I said. Here you are trying trying to criticize a woman's justification with her claims that she's feeling sexualized by a man ...
... and you're feeling like that I'm making you out to feel one of the "bad guys."
Wow. I sense a theme here. She can't justify her feelings, but apparently you have yours validated that I think you're one of the "bad guys?"
Seriously, wow.
Are you sure?
The female was feeling pretty sure. But she has to be questioned.
But we can nip one thing in the bud, here:
I don't think you're the bad guy, Kirth:
1) We are in complete agreement that the guy did a boneheaded thing.
2) We are in agreement that she should feel nervous.
3) We are also in agreement that you (and/or I) should be nervous when approached like that.
It's all about justification.
If you want the right to feel justified that I'm making you feel like a "bad guy", then I guess we might be able to grant her the right that she's been made to be feeling "sexualized".
I may disagree with your justification, but you have that right to feel that way. I can't take it away from you.
Don't take the justification away from the woman, either; she has right to it.
Not much more I can say at this point. Perhaps we all need that female perspective.
I don't see the how an idiot who committed a social faux pas and then went away when he was told to can be considered a reason to form a new club. Yes we expect better of skeptics and atheists because of thier education and awareness of the "paternalistic" nature of religion. Unfortunately as these people will point out to you are human and make mistakes.
Did you miss the links of the first page stating that it was Jen McCreight who started the Atheism+ movement? Not Rebecca Watson. I take it you also missed the part where I stated that Watson isn't involved in the Atheism+ movement.
Furthermore, it's hardly an "exclusive club". I don't know where you're getting that at all.
Furthermore, I was not citing the South African study in specific response to the Atheism+ movement. That was in response to someone saying that there are thousands of non-rapists for every one rapist, which the study I cited- and the college student study- both clearly disprove. In that context, it's a very relevant study. I also see that no one has bothered to try and find countering studies; instead, people are just "saddened" that women might perceive them as rapists, or a potential rapist. Well, boo hoo. I'm more concerned with not getting raped that hurting someone's feelings. Maybe men should be more concerned with stopping other men from raping than with whether or not a woman things they're a potential rapist, hmm?
I don't see the how an idiot who committed a social faux pas and then went away when he was told to can be considered a reason to form a new club. Yes we expect better of skeptics and atheists because of thier education and awareness of the "paternalistic" nature of religion. Unfortunately as these people will point out to you are human and make mistakes.Did you miss the links of the first page stating that it was Jen McCreight who started the Atheism+ movement? Not Rebecca Watson. I take it you also missed the part where I stated that Watson isn't involved in the Atheism+ movement.
Furthermore, it's hardly an "exclusive club". I don't know where you're getting that at all.
Furthermore, I was not citing the South African study in specific response to the Atheism+ movement. That was in response to someone saying that there are thousands of non-rapists for every one rapist, which the study I cited- and the college student study- both clearly disprove. In that context, it's a very relevant study. I also see that no one has bothered to try and find countering studies; instead, people are just "saddened" that women might perceive them as rapists, or a potential rapist. Well, boo hoo. I'm more concerned with not getting raped that hurting someone's feelings. Maybe men should be more concerned with stopping other men from raping than with whether or not a woman things they're a potential rapist, hmm?
Can we please not turn this into a conversation were anyone has to toss their lot in with all the rapists out there? It's fine to say that you don't like guys hitting on you in the elevator, but if you can't tell the difference between that and <redacted>, then <redacted>.