Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foolmewunz said:
Well, here at Otis United Technologies, a nice gender-neutral elevator company, we hear you. We listen to our special snowflakes and that's why we've developed the Problematik 2100TM, the first elevator with an on board cappuccino and espresso machine. No more awkward discussions of whether to go back to a room, you can have your tasty beverage on your trip to your floor.
Click to expand...
:D
 
KoihimeNakamura said:
Before you guys start, does she bash other woman for doing it? There's nothing really incompatible with her views and a woman choosing to objectify /herself/
Click to expand...
So bashing guys for objectifying her while she objectifies herself is OK as long as she doesn't bash other women doing the same? :confused:
 
tsig said:
qed
Click to expand...

Indeed. It demonstrates that you still fail to comprehend the difference and that there is no connection between:
- the number of abusive PMs that get you in trouble on JREF
and
- that "three or four" abusive e-mails a week is a rather small "avalanche".

No minimizing or excusing of the abusive e-mails is implied by that. Rather it points out the dramatic nature and hystrionics of an individual claiming that "three or four" abusive e-mails a week is an "avalanche" in an effort to maximize the drama around those e-mails.

Rebecca's self-promotion has worked a lot better elsewhere than your apologetics have here though. That I will admit.
 
KoihimeNakamura said:
That would at least be coherent with the idea that one may objectify oneself, but others may not do so without ones content, yes.
Click to expand...

So...posing for a suggestive picture in a "pin-up calendar" suggests self-objectification with permission for other-objectification?
 
My problem with it is how startlingly out of place it is. All the men have professional pictures and bios. The one woman in the group is depicted sexually. Patriarchy.

(I never really "got" Objectification.)
 
Diogenes said:
So...she uploaded this video and it is still there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bc7uRF_JZI
Click to expand...
KoihimeNakamura said:
Without looking (will when I get home): It wouldn't surprise me, considering 'Sexy when I do it, sexist when you do it'... but I don't prefer to lay charges until I have evidence
Click to expand...
The video has a song by skeptic friend and promoter George Hrab singing something about sexy and smart while the calendar images flash by.


Music by George Hrab no less. :rolleyes:

It's ludicrous. I'm not sure where you're coming from, KoihimeNakamura. Maybe I'm not understanding you.

It's one thing to say that someone going topless at the beach caused the guy to rape her. I have no problem seeing that victim blaming is wrong.

But promoting your sexual self repeatedly and blatantly, then complaining that a guy asks you to his room? Not seeing it.

Griping that guys hitting on gals at skeptic events is sexist, while promoting skeptic events with sexually suggestive calendars and songs? Not seeing it.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
But promoting your sexual self repeatedly and blatantly, then complaining that a guy asks you to his room? Not seeing it.

Griping that guys hitting on gals at skeptic events is sexist, while promoting skeptic events with sexually suggestive calendars and songs? Not seeing it.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, gleaned from other sources, she has changed her mind. Not exactly like a reborn Christian, but somewhat analogous. That calendar, that picture, remnants of the old Watson and the old Skepchicks.

I don't begrudge her the right to radically change her mind. I don't begrudge her her views on feminism, patriarchy, objectification or rape culture.

I mind the lack of critical thinking and intellectual dishonesty that shines through everything she's been writing and saying.

The one example that made up my mind, was when in her dispute with Dawkins about Elevatorgate, which, it's been said thousands of times, had nothing to do with rape, just with male privilege, she decided a letter-campaign from rape victims to Dawkins would send the right message.
 
Lorentz said:
As I understand it, gleaned from other sources, she has changed her mind. Not exactly like a reborn Christian, but somewhat analogous. That calendar, that picture, remnants of the old Watson and the old Skepchicks.

I don't begrudge her the right to radically change her mind. I don't begrudge her her views on feminism, patriarchy, objectification or rape culture.

I mind the lack of critical thinking and intellectual dishonesty that shines through everything she's been writing and saying.

The one example that made up my mind, was when in her dispute with Dawkins about Elevatorgate, which, it's been said thousands of times, had nothing to do with rape, just with male privilege, she decided a letter-campaign from rape victims to Dawkins would send the right message.
Click to expand...
It's the Skepchick calendar image we are talking about. Old Watson? I don't think so. It's on the SGU Watson bio right now.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The video has a song by skeptic friend and promoter George Hrab singing something about sexy and smart while the calendar images flash by.


Music by George Hrab no less. :rolleyes:

It's ludicrous. I'm not sure where you're coming from, KoihimeNakamura. Maybe I'm not understanding you.

It's one thing to say that someone going topless at the beach caused the guy to rape her. I have no problem seeing that victim blaming is wrong.

But promoting your sexual self repeatedly and blatantly, then complaining that a guy asks you to his room? Not seeing it.

Griping that guys hitting on gals at skeptic events is sexist, while promoting skeptic events with sexually suggestive calendars and songs? Not seeing it.
Click to expand...

Her view is as follows: A woman may choose to objectify herself in certain contexts and situations. That does not mean she may be objectified in others. I.E Just because she does a calendar doesn't mean she wants to be hit on.

It's not a hard concept, and it's one of the few places I think she's actually semi reasonable about it.

There are many other reasons and actions by RW to criticize, honestly.
 
I wasn't commenting on any greater context with calendars or with relation to Watson's other arguments. I think the bio is problematic in and of itself, or at least in relation to the other bios.
 
KoihimeNakamura said:
Her view is as follows: A woman may choose to objectify herself in certain contexts and situations. That does not mean she may be objectified in others. I.E Just because she does a calendar doesn't mean she wants to be hit on.

It's not a hard concept, and it's one of the few places I think she's actually semi reasonable about it...
Click to expand...

I guess I'm just not clear on what "objectification" actually means.

Recognition of gender and initiating an attempt at courtship doesn't seem to be the same thing as seeing that person as only a sexual object, at least to me. I don't see how a broadly socially acceptable courtship ritual...the coffee invitation...is supposed to "debase" or "demean" or "dehumanize".

That particular alleged situation I could see someone reasonably feeling uncomfortable in from a "personal space" and, potentially, physical safety perspective, but I don't see how "objectification" really enters the picture.
 
Diogenes said:
I guess I'm just not clear on what "objectification" actually means.

Recognition of gender and initiating an attempt at courtship doesn't seem to be the same thing as seeing that person as only a sexual object, at least to me. I don't see how a broadly socially acceptable courtship ritual...the coffee invitation...is supposed to "debase" or "demean" or "dehumanize".

That particular alleged situation I could see someone reasonably feeling uncomfortable in from a "personal space" and, potentially, physical safety perspective, but I don't see how "objectification" really enters the picture.
Click to expand...

I agree it's an overly broad way of looking at it, but it may also depend on how it's done. This is where context is vital.
 
Diogenes said:
I guess I'm just not clear on what "objectification" actually means.

Recognition of gender and initiating an attempt at courtship doesn't seem to be the same thing as seeing that person as only a sexual object, at least to me. I don't see how a broadly socially acceptable courtship ritual...the coffee invitation...is supposed to "debase" or "demean" or "dehumanize".

That particular alleged situation I could see someone reasonably feeling uncomfortable in from a "personal space" and, potentially, physical safety perspective, but I don't see how "objectification" really enters the picture.
Click to expand...

I think this is a valid question. My response is that the situation is key. I think it is a reasonable assumption that a request back to a hotel room at 4am coming from a stranger is pretty well guaranteed to get shot down. So to make that offer, you can't really be thinking of the other person as a person, you have to be seeing them as an opportunity, or fantasy enabler. If you approached that situation seeing them as a person you'd just be quiet, or perhaps say, "I really liked your talk." and make no further invite, though again at 4am, in an elevator, just a bad place to be striking up a conversation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom