• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What do feminists want?

epepke said:
I quite agree with this, and that's what I'm trying to say.

Women can either

1) Demand to be treated differently from men, or

2) Demand to be treated equally as men

One can construct elaborate reasons for either, but doing both simultaneously leads to contradictions. One can face these contradictions, or not.
Click to expand...

OK, I'm going to go with being treated equally. So can I assume that you will start hitting on men? Just so that you treat them the same as women.
 
epepke said:
I quite agree with this, and that's what I'm trying to say.

Women can either

1) Demand to be treated differently from men, or

2) Demand to be treated equally as men

One can construct elaborate reasons for either, but doing both simultaneously leads to contradictions. One can face these contradictions, or not.
Click to expand...

This is such a bizarre meme we've stumbled on in this thread. So if a woman wants to be politically equal or not subjected to discrimination in the workplace, they can't complain about threatening behavior?

So, if African Americans wanted to be treated as equal to whites, they cannot say that they were scared when a mob of people in white hoods gathered outside their house, because if they were white, they wouldn't have anything to fear? If any Jewish person feels threatened by a swastika painted on their door, they're conceding that they aren't equal to WASPs? It's a baffling notion.

The fact of the matter is that women are disproportionately victims of assault. Women are often concerned about that type of assault in a way men are not, just like black people in certain parts of the country have more to fear that whites (though we've come much farther in terms of eliminating racially-motivated violence than we have in dealing with sexual assault directed at women).

Yes, you can be politically and economically liberated and still be afraid when a man threatens you physically. There's absolutely no connection between the two, and I find it odd that people are making this leap.
 
The concepts of "equal" and "same" are not identical.

It is possible to treat someone as an equal to another, without treating them exactly the same as another. This is where epepke's description is a false dichotomy.
 
bookitty said:
Heaven forbid that we take one woman's concern seriously if, on the off chance and against strong evidence, we don't share that concern.

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/because_of_the_implication
Click to expand...

That article contains the statement "In sum, men who corner women know what they're doing. And yes, they are relying on the fear of rape to grease the wheels towards getting laid. Rebecca may not have put it that way, but being a mean ol' feminist bitch, I'm happy to say it. Also: duh." What is your take on that statement?
 
epepke said:
That article contains the statement "In sum, men who corner women know what they're doing. And yes, they are relying on the fear of rape to grease the wheels towards getting laid. Rebecca may not have put it that way, but being a mean ol' feminist bitch, I'm happy to say it. Also: duh." What is your take on that statement?
Click to expand...

That you have focused in on the one paragraph that will allow you to forward your own agenda?
 
TraneWreck said:
This is such a bizarre meme we've stumbled on in this thread. So if a woman wants to be politically equal or not subjected to discrimination in the workplace, they can't complain about threatening behavior?

So, if African Americans wanted to be treated as equal to whites, they cannot say that they were scared when a mob of people in white hoods gathered outside their house, because if they were white, they wouldn't have anything to fear? If any Jewish person feels threatened by a swastika painted on their door, they're conceding that they aren't equal to WASPs? It's a baffling notion.

The fact of the matter is that women are disproportionately victims of assault. Women are often concerned about that type of assault in a way men are not, just like black people in certain parts of the country have more to fear that whites (though we've come much farther in terms of eliminating racially-motivated violence than we have in dealing with sexual assault directed at women).

Yes, you can be politically and economically liberated and still be afraid when a man threatens you physically. There's absolutely no connection between the two, and I find it odd that people are making this leap.
Click to expand...

No real man has ever felt threatened or intimidated. :rolleyes:
 
bookitty said:
<snip>
Also small hint for free: The numbers game is kinda gross. Hitting on many women in less than ideal circumstances in hopes that one of them will eventually give in means that you are willing to add discomfort to the lives of many people in the unproven hope that you will eventually gain some benefit.
Click to expand...

I concur entirely.

But just from the perspective of a somewhat shy and socially awkward guy, it's a bit of a catch-22.

In our society, the onus is generally on the man to take the lead and initiate relationships. If a man wants the pleasure of a lady friend in his life, taking the risk of making women uncomfortable is something that must be done. Reading the signals, and getting ideal circumstances is very tricky. If a guy comes on right away, it's often creepy. If he waits until he knows the woman, it's emotionally manipulative.

The advice I have heard from many women (Rebecca included) is to go talk to them. But if this makes them uncomfortable, unless perfectly done...

What's a decent guy who doesn't want to alienate women to do?

Just for the record, my previous point was full-on tongue in cheek. A burqua does sound intriguing, but I don't think I have the legs for it.
 
@Rusty - I probably chose the wrong smiley. I think I was able to read between those lines. Don't worry about your legs, the burqua is very forgiving.
 
Man or woman, being in an isolated situation with someone bigger and stronger than you can be intimidating.

There's absolutely no need to assume sexualization, though. She didn't feel safe going with him, and so she declined his invitation -- and assuming he accepted that and moved away, that's the end of it.

...or should have been, except some people like to believe that their own preferences are universal, that any invitation you would decline should never have been made, or that all men want is sex. And feel the need to blog about it.
 
Antiquehunter said:
@Rusty - I probably chose the wrong smiley. I think I was able to read between those lines. Don't worry about your legs, the burqua is very forgiving.
Click to expand...

I figured as much.

I tend to use sarcasm very heavily, and there are times when people who know me well in real life aren't sure if I'm being serious or not, and the subtleties of the spoken language aren't always evident in text...
 
bookitty said:
That you have focused in on the one paragraph that will allow you to forward your own agenda?
Click to expand...

Are we back to your telling me that I have an agenda again? I thought we had overcome that, but maybe I was wrong. Maybe I'll have to ask you again what you think my agenda is.

I want to know what your take on it is. I would have assumed that it would be similar to mine, that is, that it is stupid. You can convince me otherwise, if you like. You can say whatever you want.

As for the "one paragraph" thingie, well, you know. Isn't that exactly what's happening? This entire bruhaha is based on one statement made in one elevator in one hotel in Dublin. Actually, we don't even have that. We have one example of hearsay. Skeptics should be aware of the fact that eyewitness, or earwitness testimony is terrible. Every second-grader who has played "Telephone" knows that as well. It happened in a country that does not have a particularly liberated view of the relations between men and women.

Yet, there seems to be not much problem for a lot of people to consider this emblematic about how vast numbers of men in skepticism treat all women. Funny, that.
 
epepke said:
This entire bruhaha is based on one statement made in one elevator in one hotel in Dublin.
Click to expand...

Well - not exactly. We have the above, then we have a whole bunch of actions around what happened AFTER the incident above, which has devolved into a media circus the likes of which Fox News and/or the Howard Stern Show would be proud of (within the somewhat more restrained halls of the skpetical blogosphere).

My only unresolved issue is the fact that I DO genuinely think that (my friend) Ms. Watson has engaged in attention-seeking behaviour related to this incident. My evidence for this is her facebook post stating that she got a whole bunch of new twitter followers as a result of Richard Dawkins' somewhat snotty comment on a blog.

So - while I can stomach that what happened to Rebecca was a little unpleasant for her, and while I agree that people should use their brains before throwing a pass (or simply making a statement that could be construed as a pass), the fact that this has spiralled out of control shows me that:

- Its all a good lead up for discussion / drama before a major skeptical event. I DO think this will be a topic of discussion in one week at TAM, and I do think we'll have some sparks, if not fireworks over it.
- Rebecca does a terrific job of self-promotion. And yay for her - she is kind of a public figure now, so I'm not being judgmental here, I'm just calling it as I see it.
- We (the broader skeptical community) don't really have a lot of any substance to talk about, so lets all chime in on this one.

Is that popcorn-munching smiley still available?
 
bookitty said:
Heaven forbid that we take one woman's concern seriously if, on the off chance and against strong evidence, we don't share that concern.

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/because_of_the_implication
Click to expand...
You are building straw men here. I don't care that anyone should complain individually that they were personally disgusted or offended by some creep in an elevator.

It's making a case that the guy should have known better, that how dare he hit on someone, that Rebecca's view of being sexually objectified should be shared by everyone in the skeptical community that I disagree with. As for hotel elevators being dangerous for 'the weaker sex' :rolleyes:, that's just a difference of opinion between myself and TraneWreck as to where to draw the line on the continuum of places women should be afraid to be alone in.
 
Well, it's got something for everyone--no matter what your point of view, you're bound to have heard some comments on this that you object to :P That's good kerfuffle, right there.
 
Put the question another way:

Suppose we have the world that "feminists want", whatever that may mean. In such a world, is casual 4am sex permissible? Assuming the answer is yes*, how does a the enlightened person of this utopia go about it?

So far in this thread I've seen:
1) Not by accosting someone in an elevator
2) Not by accosting someone in public.

*and I'm not very clear on this point from what little I know of feminist philosophy.
 
phildonnia said:
Put the question another way:

Suppose we have the world that "feminists want", whatever that may mean. In such a world, is casual 4am sex permissible? Assuming the answer is yes*, how does a the enlightened person of this utopia go about it?

So far in this thread I've seen:
1) Not by accosting someone in an elevator one doesn't know well
2) Not by accosting someone in public one doesn't know well.

*and I'm not very clear on this point from what little I know of feminist philosophy.
Click to expand...

Bolding and additions mine.

If one wishes to allow for casual sex with relative strangers, an enlightened person of this utopia would hopefully at least wait for some clear evidence that such an encounter was something the person enjoys.

I wouldn't propose that people be held responsible for picking up on whether someone was attracted to them in the first place (I'm often bad at this myself), but developing the knack to do so would be highly useful in deciding whether to approach at all.
 
Last edited:
Antiquehunter said:
Well, I once stayed at the Western as part of a review of cheap hotels I was doing in Vegas, and based on my experience, I didn't feel entirely safe there. Not because it was a low quality hotel - actually, for $19 a night, it was pretty decent considering... But the number of audible domestic disputes and clearly drug-addled patrons around was a bit offputting. :)
Click to expand...
As a woman who has been addicted to exploring the world since I was about 12 years old, I've found myself in a handful of very dangerous places. I can probably count them on 2 hands. It happens. Especially when you are naive until you've experienced that particular mistake, then you know not to do that again.

But by far the vast majority of the places I've been, including ones people warned me about, which people tend to do a lot, never turned out to be dangerous. People are normal everywhere you go. They have families, they go to jobs, they aren't looking to rob and rape you around every corner. Crime occurs, yes, as do assaults. But these things are not the overwhelming natural state of things everywhere (with a few exceptions that evolve and devolve mostly around the political situation in certain locations).

If anything I've feared vehicles including a small plane in Guatemala that had smoke pouring out of the engine like an old car burning oil from bad valves, a taxi in Mexico City with no seat belts that went 80 mph, a bus in Peru at night on a narrow road on the winding cliffs south of Lima, and the fact a lot of low rent hotels are also fire hazards much more often than I've felt fear from dangerous people. And I have traveled alone a lot.
 
epepke said:
Are we back to your telling me that I have an agenda again? I thought we had overcome that, but maybe I was wrong. Maybe I'll have to ask you again what you think my agenda is.

I want to know what your take on it is. I would have assumed that it would be similar to mine, that is, that it is stupid. You can convince me otherwise, if you like. You can say whatever you want.

As for the "one paragraph" thingie, well, you know. Isn't that exactly what's happening? This entire bruhaha is based on one statement made in one elevator in one hotel in Dublin. Actually, we don't even have that. We have one example of hearsay. Skeptics should be aware of the fact that eyewitness, or earwitness testimony is terrible. Every second-grader who has played "Telephone" knows that as well. It happened in a country that does not have a particularly liberated view of the relations between men and women.

Yet, there seems to be not much problem for a lot of people to consider this emblematic about how vast numbers of men in skepticism treat all women. Funny, that.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the video in which Rebecca discusses the incident? She clearly says that everyone there (which would include the men in skepticism) were great. There was just this one guy and could he please not do that. You are now accusing her of lying because...I don't know why.

Yes, my previous answer was flippant. Every time an issue comes up that is even distantly related to feminism, it turns into "Play gotcha! with the feminist."

I've read your stuff. I know you're a good guy. I'd bet real money that you've been in a great, respectful relationship, friendship, acquaintanceship with many women. You are in no way, shape or form, my enemy or even an adversary. All the feminism stuff is just another topic for you to sink your teeth into, play with some ideas, toss out some notions, and all that fun, fun stuff that keeps people (myself included) coming back to this forum. It is an intellectual exercise rather than something really, really care about.*

But you know, when Watson recounts (in a slightly exasperated manner) an example of something that's kinda common, I sigh along with her. I've been there, not worrying about anything, just talking to people and thinking I'm being understood and blammo! out of the blue there's some idiot who just. doesn't. get. it. The boss who was shocked that I wasn't going to stay late with him. He hired me, I owed him. Wow and I thought I got hired for talent. *sigh* The guy at the hostel, we spent an hour talking about how great it was that I was spending my honeymoon in Italy. Who then tried to pull me into his room because my husband obviously wasn't taking care of honeymoon duties. *sigh*

So it's a little difficult for me to get excited about playing intellectual exercise with something that has bummed me out on too many occasions. I'm just too tired. Playing devil's advocate for the idea of equality is just depressing after a while. I don't want to play. I have faith that the majority of people in the various movements already get it. That most are open to learning, that a lot just need time and that a very, very few will be clueless forever. Conversations that boil down to "No means no. No really. It does." or "b****s aint s***" make me lose faith.

*If you actually do really, really care about anti-feminism, the above may be void.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom