Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Beelzebuddy]

Emotions are tough and stringy and leave bits in your teeth.

But I think you'll find you don't really mind it.

 

[devnull]

I say we go full Vulcan and just eschew emotions.

Illogical, captain.

 

[Belz...]

Illogical, captain.

Hey, that's my line.

 

[d4m10n]

Other than that, "Guys, don't do that" was offensive unless she just meant, don't do it to her.

You said it is a myth that “People think RW didn't have a right to her reaction to elevator guy” but here you are saying that her reaction was actually offensive if she was indeed pushing for a general norm against that particular sort of boorish behavior.

From the video alone, I can see the possibility that she was talking specifically to her fanboys, essentially asking them to stop sexualizing her at cons. In the associated blogpost, though, she takes a more general moralistic approach, saying that “…people need to be aware of how their comments might make someone feel extraordinarily uncomfortable and even feel as though they are in danger.”

It is entirely possible, of course, that she made the leap from addressing her specific situation to talking about broader social norms once people started arguing about what those norms should be. That would be fairly ordinary conversational transition, in my experience.

Are you talking now about the whole vlog or just the elevator segment?

Just that last bit.

I find her rambling vlogs and frequent condescension toward people who don't share her view of the supposed rampant sexist behavior at atheist and skeptic events boring.

Agreed. Then again, I find most of YouTube skepticism boring.

And the idea of being upset because a guy made a pass, seriously, getting groped is bad, a guy politely hitting on you, not so much.

She has argued that it should not be considered polite or considerate to hit on someone in that particular way. Like her, I see it as rude to ask someone back to one's room upon finding them in an enclosed space, late at night, without having spoken to them previously or established any flirtatious rapport. You are free to disagree, of course, and I assume that you do.

However, I'm fine that lots of woman would be upset about a similar situation. A lot of women are shy, and not as assertive and adventurous as I am. I think they could have handled the situation because nothing happened, but if some timid gal said it bothered her, I would believe her and there would be nothing wrong with that.

The claim that one must be especially timid and shy in order to find sexual advances from total strangers off-putting is an interesting one. I wonder whether any social surveys have come close to addressing this question. If so, I bet the answers are significantly different by sex of respondent.

I don't think the whole male population has to adjust to accommodate every shy woman out there, but telling others it bothered her? Not a problem.

This is where we disagree. I think that both males and females should actively avoid making people uncomfortable by propositioning them prior to receiving any flirtatious signals, especially if the one being propositioned has just been talking in public about how they don’t want to be sexualized, and most especially if you have to corner them in a lift to get your first words in.

I don’t even think this is a close call, really, in terms of crafting social norms which will maximize human flourishing. It is not particularly hard to flirt with someone in public, readily escapable venues, prior to inviting them back to the private room with the expensive bed and the fancy coffeemaker.

But then I knew RW (not well, but well enough) before she had her feminism revelation. I don't believe she was honestly discomforted.

You think she was just manufacturing this controversy for the sake of stirring the pot? That is pretty devious, especially how she snuck it in the end of a video mostly about other stuff.

I have, OTOH, spent a fair amount of time debating the claims about all the sexist men in the atheist and skeptical communities.

I don’t know if elevatorgate can be taken as an example of sexism. Boorish tactlessness, sure. Drunken tomfoolery, okay. But to call it sexism implies that it somehow lessens the agency or status of women as a group, which is an argument I’d have to see spelled out.

As to how this blue dress / white dress awkward elevator moment eventually led to the Great Atheist Rifts, well, that’s a whole other story. And one that I'd be happy to get into, once I understand where Rebecca Watson first went wrong.

 

[Meed]

It becomes a rather strange way to make a statement if all it means is not to do that with her. She intended it to be a broader prohibition, and was always taken as such.

Ah. So your disagreement with me is that you do think what RW said was equivalent to "never approach a female you are intertested in". I find that a very bizarre interpretation, but I'm content agreeing to disagree.

That still doesn't explain your odd responses to me in which you appeared to be under the impression that *I* was Rebecca Watson or something. I never even expressed agreement with her claim, let alone said anything about women who disagree not mattering or endorsing labelling people as rape supporters. Moving on...

 

[Meed]

And you'll remain confused until you stop ignoring what's being said and replacing it with your version.

Show me an example where I've done this and I'll happily correct myself and apologize. I won't hold my breath, though, because I don't think I have.

"Don't approach a woman under specific scenario X"

Who defines scenario X?
Who determines which specific scenarios are X?

I don't want RW deciding under what circumstances men can approach me. Who gave her that authority? I sure didn't.

All of this is utterly irrelevant to the fact that "don't approach a female under scenario X" and "never approach a female you are interested in" mean two different things. As far as I can tell.

Ergo you are saying my opinion and women like me don't matter.

Uhhhh. That might almost make some degree of sense, if not for the fact that I'm not Rebecca Watson and I've also never said anything about agreeing with her.

 

[Joe Random]

Thread needs more men with guns on planes ...

 

[Paul2]

I think that both males and females should actively avoid making people uncomfortable by propositioning them prior to receiving any flirtatious signals. . . .

The only hesitation I have in agreeing completely with you comes from the wide variety of human sexual behavior. For instance, I recall a memorable encounter in college in which, to the best of my memory (which perhaps isn't saying much), a women that I knew and I wound up separately and individually at a party and at some point, without a word to each other, nor with any physical contact or gestures, nor any previous flirtation, got up, went back to my room, and had a nice encounter.

Now, that encounter is a different scenario than what you laid out, admittedly, but it is an example of how things can go differently for two people. So, in the spirit of viva la difference, what happens if someone is turned on when they are propositioned without previous flirtation? Or, what about when someone is **initially** turned off, but then turned on upon further reflection (an hour later?)?

Perhaps we'd say that those encounters have to be sacrificed for the positive good that would result if people were not made uncomfortable by sudden propositions. And perhaps the people who are made uncomfortable (not necessarily a light thing) are in the great majority, too.

At the very least, if we wind up rationally concluding that your suggestion is proper, we should acknowledge that some few (or more?) cases won't fit.

 

[d4m10n]

Excellent point, but it elides a number of relevant details. The problem in the elevator wasn't merely a thinly veiled sexual proposition, or a proposition at 4am in a foreign country, or a proposition prior to any flirtatious signals, or a proposition to a stranger in an elevator, or a proposition to a feminist who just explained at the bar how she hates being “objectified” i.e. treated as a sexual being. It was all that rolled into one event, at least according to the only eyewitness.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You said it is a myth that “People think RW didn't have a right to her reaction to elevator guy” but here you are saying that her reaction was actually offensive if she was indeed pushing for a general norm against that particular sort of boorish behavior.

She had a right to her reaction. But once again you are blocking out the fact there was not a problem until she told the rest of us we should have her reaction.

From the video alone, I can see the possibility that she was talking specifically to her fanboys, essentially asking them to stop sexualizing her at cons. In the associated blogpost, though, she takes a more general moralistic approach, saying that “…people need to be aware of how their comments might make someone feel extraordinarily uncomfortable and even feel as though they are in danger.”

Stop ignoring the issue. Put this crap out of your head.

Have you done that yet?

Now put it back in your head that the video was not the issue!!!!!!!!! RW's criticism of the women who said it didn't sound that bad to them is where the issue began.
Until you get this critical issue, I see no point in going further.

 

[d4m10n]

She had a right to her reaction. But once again you are blocking out the fact there was not a problem until she told the rest of us we should have her reaction.

A link would be helpful at this point.

 

[Paul2]

Excellent point, but it elides a number of relevant details. The problem in the elevator wasn't merely a thinly veiled sexual proposition, or a proposition at 4am in a foreign country, or a proposition prior to any flirtatious signals, or a proposition to a stranger in an elevator, or a proposition to a feminist who just explained at the bar how she hates being “objectified” i.e. treated as a sexual being. It was all that rolled into one event, at least according to the only eyewitness.

I wasn't addressing elevatorgate, only the first part of your comment (I deliberately deleted the other "especially. . ." clauses on purpose). Ultimately, though, your point is taken.

I presume you were replying to my post right above yours.

 

[d4m10n]

I wasn't addressing elevatorgate, only the first part of your comment (I deliberately deleted the other "especially. . ." clauses on purpose). Ultimately, though, your point is taken.

As is yours. Would that I had such anecdotes to draw upon.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A link would be helpful at this point.

Holy

Links have been posted up the ying yang, Every detail of this incident has been posted and reposted and posted again ad nauseum.

Go look it up. Maybe if you look it up yourself, like when a person is the driver instead of the passenger, you'll notice how you got there.

Here are two names to look for: Stef McGraw and Rose StClair.

 

[d4m10n]

Here are two names to look for: Stef McGraw and Rose StClair.

Feels like the goalposts are shifting here. Now you claim to have no objection to RW's elevator-related antics prior to those women speaking out?

ETA: Is it normal to make a factual claim on a skeptic forum and then tell someone else to look up the proof thereof?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you are not willing to look at the actual facts involved in Elevatorgate. Check.


As for not backing up the claim, that's an outright falsehood. I have posted link after link including a recent one. So you really need to watch that, accusing people of not supporting a claim just because you missed it .... about a thousand times.

 

[wareyin]

So you are not willing to look at the actual facts involved in Elevatorgate. Check.


As for not backing up the claim, that's an outright falsehood. I have posted link after link including a recent one. So you really need to watch that, accusing people of not supporting a claim just because you missed it .... about a thousand times.

That is a terrible style of argument: when one is proven wrong according to facts already given, ask for those facts again. Anyone claiming to be familiar with this drama since 2011 cannot be unaware of McGraw, at the very least. You are being generous in assuming the claim was missed; I think it is a pretense.

 

[d4m10n]

According to Skeptic Ginger, Rebecca "told the rest of us we should have her reaction."

I ask which particular event she is talking about, I am told to go look it up. This is a terrible form of argumentation, since we have no way to know which particular event is being referenced. Hundreds of people were arguing and moralizing in the wake of what happened in that lift, countless hypotheticals and counterfactuals were thrown around.

(And of course I'm aware of what happened to Stef, I linked to it at the end of post #2524.)

I dispute the claim that Skeptic Ginger (and others) did not have any problem with Watson until after what she did to McGraw, based on my reading of the contemporary thread elsewhere in this forum. If you want to find those details, just look them up yourself.

 

[d4m10n]

"RW went way over the top accusing all who disagreed with her of being part of the rape culture problem."

This factual claim feels fairly hyperbolic. When and where exactly did this happen?

 

[ponderingturtle]

She had a right to her reaction. But once again you are blocking out the fact there was not a problem until she told the rest of us we should have her reaction.

Look the mindset comes from the point that they have to deny those who have differing reactions than them have a right to their reaction so they see any criticism or support of their opponents as declaring they don't have a right to their reaction.

Everyone has a right to their reactions, but you don't have a right for me to care about how outraged you are. That applies to everyone. I don't doubt that people feel a lot of outrage at say seeing gay men be affectionate in public, I just don't care.

So as this situation was not presenting as falling outside the bounds of reasonably acceptable behavior, I don't care what her emotional reaction was it isn't relevant. That is what d4m10n isn't getting.