tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post3502347628766848026..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Oh hell, is Elevatorgate going to ruin TAM9?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger413125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45851076876744879842011-09-15T19:32:42.771-05:002011-09-15T19:32:42.771-05:00I can't believe these messages. It just goes ...I can't believe these messages. It just goes to confirm that most men haven't a clue about what women go through. There is a large gender difference in the US with men still trying to be "macho" and control and dominate women. Ah, testosterone.Don3751https://www.blogger.com/profile/10699946415163937754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-44477357328917551712011-08-14T10:38:30.530-05:002011-08-14T10:38:30.530-05:00@Savi She is doing it partly for social reasons t...@Savi She is doing it partly for social reasons to make the meet more socially comfortable less upsetting for those too offended, as to not buying his books.. I wouldn't trust her recommendations 'cos if she really thought they were unique and valuable, she wouldn't want people to not buy them. She probably thinks other books are just as good, for her it's just preaching to one of the choir. She will probably now pressure her friends to remove the book from their shelves, or not be so friendly with her! Rational discourse on the subject should not be shut off. And if she could control her emotions of offence enough to make it an issue and speak about it, she has to be willing to handle a debate/discussion on it. Though i'm not sure if Dawkins or her want to. Also though a debate on an offensive thing isn't really a subject for a social event but they could always have the discussion in a venue or better dedicated place on the internet (like a thread on the topic!) where people are willing to rationally discuss and debate without being too offended. If she wants people to change their views or behavior or not act on their rationally held views, then she or a spokesperson for her, has to be able to justify herself. Unfortunately maybe she sees Atheist meets as a social gatherings of like minded people that agree, or aren't part of it, and a venue to advance other issues in a way that shuts off rational discourse. Bear in mind, Dawkins himself isn't so big on rational discourse, he is refusing to debate WLC. Hitchens is full of rhetoric in place of rational discourse. The mainstream atheist movement is not as rational as i'd like it to be, this Watkins incident is just another symptom.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12168752419786681178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-44941969095730158592011-08-13T16:39:37.758-05:002011-08-13T16:39:37.758-05:00@Robert
Why try to hurt him at all? Wouldn't i...@Robert<br />Why try to hurt him at all? Wouldn't it be wise for her to try to get him to understand the way she feels? There's nothing sensible or rational about reacting maliciously over a disagreement, especially when it involves the act of ignoring everything positive Dawkins has to say because of one thing she regards as negative.Savihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15283382255891952732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-8280527627409900712011-08-12T16:16:38.800-05:002011-08-12T16:16:38.800-05:00@Savi It makes sense 'cos it's trying to h...@Savi It makes sense 'cos it's trying to hurt him in a non physical, "civilized" way, that's the rational.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12168752419786681178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-86874294374408997982011-08-12T13:05:56.866-05:002011-08-12T13:05:56.866-05:00I don't give a damn about the elevator inciden...I don't give a damn about the elevator incident. What upsets me is the fact that Watson has chosen to stop giving Dawkins her attention and her money; that she is no longer recommending his books and documentaries to her friends and family or giving them as gifts; that she is no longer attending his lectures or recommending that others attend. All this because she disagrees with him on one issue. I don't care how vehement the disagreement may be; it is completely irrational to disregard everything a person has to say just because of one thing about them that one finds objectionable. It's not like The God Delusion is no longer a good book ever since Dawkins made those comments about the elevator incident. She was a fan of him before this ordeal took place. It makes no sense to disregard every bit of input to the skeptical community Dawkins has made and will make just because of one aspect his personality or one view he holds. It's hard to believe that a person as prominent in the skeptical community as Watson would behave in such an irrational manner.Savihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15283382255891952732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-19688196935337351052011-08-09T13:48:38.556-05:002011-08-09T13:48:38.556-05:00@ Kestra who said: "And I said it yesterday: ...@ Kestra who said: "And I said it yesterday: There was NO way this particular man didn't already KNOW how this particular woman felt. He had attended her talk. He was present in the bar that night, where she elaborated on her points with a group of people. He heard her say she was tired and going to bed."<br />Kestra Later said: "This IS NOT the same as a stranger, a real stranger, a man I've never spoken to, soliciting me for sex on an elevator."<br /><br />So which is it? They hung out at a bar together talking until she left at 4:00 who asked her in the elevator, or it was a complete stranger she'd never talked with before who asked her in the elevator?Karl Johansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07074842622569444524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-44618699131753228762011-08-09T04:20:42.135-05:002011-08-09T04:20:42.135-05:00I can understand how a woman in an elevator at 4am...I can understand how a woman in an elevator at 4am is more nervous. But at the same time, she shouldn't just say she's offended, without fully justifying it, (in her own time, when she's comfortable), otherwise anybody could just say they're offended over anything. <br /><br />Atheists commonly criticize religious people for taking offence, and joke about the whole concept of taking offence. Dawkins was just being consistent with that. <br /><br />Saying that it's the majority that decides, is also not going to wash with many Atheists, because you don't allow that kind of argument normally. It's not like Chess where somebody just invented a game.<br /><br />People could be right to be offended, or wrong to be offended, regardless of whether it's a minority of people or not. <br /><br />The man could turn round and say he is offended by women that treat him like he's a creepy rapist. Even if a man walks behind a woman in the street, the woman gets nervous. A majority of men might say that offends them, would they be right? I think even if it was a majority that started believing that, it could be argued that the men shouldn't be offended by that. Though if a majority or large number feel offended, they might be particularly worthy of a hearing, they should also have the decency to thoroughly explain why, particularly since they expect others to modify their behavior. I think they should immediately modify their behavior if the cost is minimal or near 0 to them. Then, they can request an explanation, and scrutinize it to their hearts content. And in any group of rationalists, there shouldn't be an objection to that. <br />Dawkins should be sorry, and apologise and make an effort to understand her reasons/reasons of her defenders, and -scrutinize them- rationally, as I did with Jen. Both Dawkins and she/her defenders, should be open minded and willing to change their mind and adjust their positions or arguments when they see they are flawed.<br /><br />I hope I don't get "disemvowelled" again for that approach or saying that.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12168752419786681178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-891070695011238082011-08-05T01:49:40.233-05:002011-08-05T01:49:40.233-05:00"Loser guys with same sense of clueless entit..."Loser guys with same sense of clueless entitlement blow Rebecca's reaction all out of proportion, make her out to be stick-up-the-ass prude who pilloried some poor Nice Guy for the ghastly crime of asking her for coffee."<br /><br />No, she was criticized for equating social awkwardness with sexism, which it is not. Women make men feel awkward all the time, yet that is hardly proof of a matriarchy.Icewedgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15919635429038360267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-7290129044776763522011-08-04T15:59:42.202-05:002011-08-04T15:59:42.202-05:001. There are a disproportionate number of men, vis...1. There are a disproportionate number of men, vis-a-vis women, at these sorts of functions<br />2. Women at these functions get tired of being hit on.<br /><br />I would posit that #2 is a direct consequence of #1. The single men should, reasonably speaking, accept the fact that a series of propositions can be tiresome for one woman, and make allowances for it. The single women should, reasonably speaking, accept the fact that, given a 10:1 (or whatever) gender inequity, there's not going to be a 1:1 pairing situation in which only one guy is going to approach -- there will be more than one such just based on pure mathematics.Kirth Gersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13771084733414305421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-76527273904042563482011-08-02T12:51:14.747-05:002011-08-02T12:51:14.747-05:001 - Being aware of how easy it is to fake your ide...1 - Being aware of how easy it is to fake your identity on the internet I have to ask - have you/she/anyone, absolutely confirm the comment was from Dawkins?<br /><br />2 - Regardless, I've read the comment supposedly made by Dawkins and the incident it was in relation to. I'm female and I agree with whomever it was (whether it be Dawkins or not) who made the comment. It was an incident that was not noteworthy, other than that the man who propositioned her clearly should have thought better about doing so at 4am in the morning. Plus given the topic she was just talking on, inviting her to his room ... yeah he was more than a bit on the obtuse side if he did actually mean to just have coffee and chat. <br /><br />That being said...<br /><br />Men proposition women.<br />Sometimes they proposition other men.<br />Sometimes it's the women who do the propositioning.<br /><br />What matters is not the fact that the offer is made, but whether the offer is made politely with respect, and how people react if they are rejected.<br /><br />Mountain from a molehill.Kahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16496281851521685415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1529801164392148582011-07-28T12:05:49.583-05:002011-07-28T12:05:49.583-05:00I think you're all fucking nuts. No one comes...I think you're all fucking nuts. No one comes out of this smelling like a rose, in fact you all smell like assholes.<br /><br />On the one side, the few out there that really are saying that RW doesn't get to feel creeped out by the situation, fuck you for trying to tell someone how to feel.<br /><br />On another side, those of you who conflate this experience with being raped, fuck you for trivializing rape.<br /><br />On another side, those of you who don't understand the fear of sexual abuse and tell those who are afraid to quit complaining, fuck you for being idiots.<br /><br />On another side, to all of you who automatically call anyone who doesn't agree with you "privileged" without actually knowing anything about the person on the other end, fuck you for talking out your asses<br /><br />On another side, those of you who claim that men don't understand what it's like to be raped, and thereby and subsequently when called on it trivialize the experiences of those men who have been raped, fuck you for trivializing rape.<br /><br />On another side, those of you who try to blame the victim and claim that the way they were dressed or flirting somehow makes rape or sexual assault ok because they were "asking for it", fuck you for enabling and trivializing rape<br /><br />On another side, those of you who take the opportunity of any post on the subject of sexism to derail it to try to talk about men's issues, fuck you for derailing.<br /><br />On another side, those of you who rail about sexism and then say that there's no such thing as sexism directed toward men, and when pointed out otherwise accuse men of whining, fuck you for being hypocrites.<br /><br />On another side, to RW for calling out Mcgraw in the middle of a meeting where she has no opportunity for an even platform over a disagreement about sexuality vs sexualization, fuck you for being an asshole<br /><br />On another side, to Dawkins for equating a [rational] unease about sexual assault with annoyance about someone chewing gum, fuck you for being an asshole<br /><br />On another side, to Dawkins for setting up daycare to allow for more families/single parents to come to meetings, thereby doing more to be inclusive toward people who have previously been unable to attend meetings, fu...well actually that one was pretty good, bravo sir.<br /><br />On another side, to RW for calling Dawkins a mysogynist, woman-hater, has-been, who's never done anything for women simply because he doesn't see you being hit on as a huge sexism issue, fuck you for being an asshole<br /><br />On another side, to RW for saying that EG was creepy and that an elevator at 4 in the morning is probably not so great a place to try to hit on someone, I can see your point, for guys that are still in the game that's probably pretty decent advice.<br /><br />Screw you guys, I'm going home.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08868255307020122518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-54767876870601686012011-07-28T03:31:29.088-05:002011-07-28T03:31:29.088-05:00Well, Matt, you've said you welcomed being que...Well, Matt, you've said you welcomed being questioned or challenged, even by those who generally agree with you.<br /><br />I do generally agree with you, and I will not call you a "buffoon" or the like for disagreeing with me. That's the first thing I disagree with you on-your characterization of some who disagree with you as "mansplaining" and telling them not to post at all. That disappoints me, given how open you generally are to honest disagreement, and often from those with far less founded arguments.<br /><br />So, maybe I'm "mansplaining". But I think she overreacted. Someone propositioned her. Sure, "coffee" is probably a euphemism here. But it doesn't matter. She wasn't interested, she said so, the guy didn't try to force the issue. That should've been the end of the story.<br /><br />There was no wrong done here. Not a little, not a lot, not any. So long as it doesn't cross the line into harassment and they're willing to take no for an answer, someone has every right to gauge the interest of someone they're interested in.<br /><br />Was this guy clumsy in his flirting attempt? Sure. Is that sexism or just awkwardness? I would guess the latter.<br /><br />So, I'm going to disagree on this one. I think Dawkins' response was a bit hyperbolic, but I don't think it was inherently wrong. Rebecca was not wronged here. She was propositioned, she said no, her decision was respected. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work? Or is no one allowed to express interest in a member of the opposite sex at all?Laughingcoyotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09693668598284732598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-65213770354750636422011-07-23T20:10:19.432-05:002011-07-23T20:10:19.432-05:00There is a lot of deeprooted misogyny in the bdsm ...There is a lot of deeprooted misogyny in the bdsm community. <br /><br />Sure I think it should be challenged and people called out on it.<br /><br />I also think the "slutwalk" is embracing raunch culture, the embodiment of misogyny in our culture, they should be called out on it.<br /><br />what is your point?A socialist open to criticismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619402773454709868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-67527601074710141472011-07-17T03:17:13.846-05:002011-07-17T03:17:13.846-05:00Honestly. I CAN"T STAND Rebecca Watson. I'...Honestly. I CAN"T STAND Rebecca Watson. I've never liked her but now I just want to puke in my soup for what she's done. Whan a narrow-minded, intolerant, pretentious little person! <br />Dawkins is absolutely right. So is the Amazing Atheist.Кръстник Дроселмайерhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01801290737752854100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81466560601952766042011-07-16T19:13:41.687-05:002011-07-16T19:13:41.687-05:00"there's a bunch of men at atheist confer..."there's a bunch of men at atheist conferences who don't care about women as people, they only view them as sex toys"<br /><br />Funny you should say that, because sex toy sites often make claims like "you will never need a man again if you use our products". If anything, I think there's far more evidence that men are viewed as replaceable by machinery than vice versa. Men never boast "I wank, so i don't need a woman!" but it's a common claim by women.<br /><br /><br />Ok, I noticed you are very interested in talking about the rudeness of people but that has nothing to do with this situation. <br /><br />"Would you like a coffee" in an elevator in a busy hotel might be annoying to you but it's a standard question people use, it works often enough that people will keep using it, and a lot of women don't see the problem. However, your violent fantasies are disturbing and I have to say if you won't discuss the issue of polite propositions, then we have nothing to discuss.<br /><br />If your violent fantasies continue, you might want to see a therapist. If you act on them, sure, you could get away with it by deceit, claiming they tried to rape you, but there's so many people recording their environment now that you might well get caught; and your righteous smiting could well end with you in a cell with a woman who is not going to take no for an answer.Brett Catonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17189516566844609390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-16946921645781706862011-07-16T19:13:07.681-05:002011-07-16T19:13:07.681-05:00It is not such a terrible thing to just want sex. ...It is not such a terrible thing to just want sex. It does not automatically imply degradation unless you feel sex is automatically a degradation. Plenty of gay men and women just want the equivalent and do it guilt free and certainly without assault. Or is the rule of "No casual sex!" something you only apply to straight men? Would you consider lecturing gay people on their sexual behaviour in the same way?<br /><br />If so, please film it and put it on youtube. The responses should be quite amusing<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />"Why should I have to be polite to someone who's being a useless jerk?"<br /><br />But again, i said polite proposition... and telling someone to "fuck off" in response to that is just rude, but par for the course. Hitting them is way over the line and it's interesting that that's your reaction to come-ons.<br /><br /><br />" Why doesn't he just go find a prostitute if he wants random sex with a stranger?"<br /><br />Because he might want to *share* pleasure with someone? Because he might find *you* special? Because he shouldn't have to pay for a mutually enjoyable experience? Because relationships often develop from casual sex? <br /><br />I think you have a few hang-ups and I hope you are not serious about your desire to hurt people. it doesn't take much to kill someone. You'd be surprised at how many people are in jail because they hit someone and they fell funny or had a heart attack or whatever. The law usually makes allowances if the intent is not to kill but manslaughter is pretty bloody serious, especially as you have prior intent as you have pointed out here. <br /><br />Still, you are probably just venting. Like my neighbour did, before she stabbed her husband (and that was over a minor disagreement, from memory). It only takes one little moment of anger and a life is gone.<br /><br />"If you want to hit on someone, use some common sense and maybe, you know, actually try *talking* to the other person first before propositioning him or her?"<br /><br />Why is it common sense that you have to get to know someone before having a sexual contact that has no romantic element intended? I would argue the opposite; getting to know them would be leading them on, giving them false expectations. Also, a lot of people find sex with strangers exciting. They manage to get through it without so much as exchanging names, or even a word in some cases, and who are you to denounce them from the pulpit? If you don't like peanut butter, does that give you the right to stop others eating it? Why are your preferences the only valid ones in your eyes? If you don't like BDSM, would you attack the people who engage in it as well? <br /><br />You can dismiss anything i say. Why not log onto a site like http://fetlife.com/ and ask for opinions? Or you can just scream at them for their wanton sluttishness. Shame them for their short skirts! You could march against sluts everywhere, why I think there's even marches dedicated to that cause... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutwalkBrett Catonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17189516566844609390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-3181951464087986282011-07-16T19:11:56.864-05:002011-07-16T19:11:56.864-05:00@ChristineCCR
We are talking at cross purposes. ...@ChristineCCR <br /><br />We are talking at cross purposes. I talk about polite propositions. You are talking about someone ignoring a directly and clearly stated request. Which apparently did not happen in the Elevatorgate scenario (if you have evidence otherwise, please provide it). <br /><br />"I have to run, I have about two more hours of work until I'm free today"<br /><br />There's no ambiguity there. However, the situation of the polite proposition is one where the person making it has not been told you are unavailable. For example, saying "I don't want to keep you then but would you like to have sex later when you are free?"<br /><br />But it is considered unacceptable to ask for sex directly, and it has been my whole life, despite the efforts to sexually liberate humanity. We have to skirt around the issue, as a rule. I know my automatic tendency is to say "no", especially if it's in public, because that is what we are taught to say. Sex is dirty! People who want it are wicked!<br /><br />I was out with a woman i found very attractive when i was 19 or 20, and i remember talking about this with a group of people going to the Rocky Horror Picture Show. We are all dressed as characters, fishnets and make-up,and she turns to the table and asks each member if they'd like to go back with her and have sex. Everyone says no. I wanted her but I was too afraid of saying yes in public, especially as she could well have then rejected me or otherwise hurt my feelings. <br /><br />"If someone I didn't know propositioned me out of the blue, in the middle of the night in an elevator, I'd probably have kicked him in the balls, and possibly called security too. " <br /><br />And that's it in a nutshell. You respond to a polite request, in a relatively safe* environment, with violence. And if you tell the truth about what they said to you, and there's footage from the security camera, then your victim has a reasonable case of assault to charge you with. <br /><br />If you don't believe me, contact your police department and say "hypothetically, if i kneed a guy in the balls for asking me for a coffee, could i be in trouble? I mean, it was in a hotel elevator, so that's ok, right? I have a free pass? and oh, i think when he fell he might have banged his head, but the blood will just wash off and the hotel staff can't charge extra for that can they? And I don't think he's breathing. But anyone who asks for coffee deserves to die, right? I mean, caffeine is very unhealthy!"<br /><br /><br /><br />*according to the Crime statistics bureau of NSW, you are not in significant danger in a lift, especially a monitored one in a busy hotel, the street is more dangerous by far, and your home is overwhelming hazardous!)<br /><br />"The guy obviously has zero interest in me as anything but a place to stick his penis. "<br /><br />And that's your excuse for violence? Would you do that to a woman who just wanted you to lick her clitoris? Is the issue that you don't like selfish lovers, or that you don't approve of casual sex and are willing to enforce that by injuring or even killing transgressors? Gosh, that sounds familiar, have you considered joining the Iranian Morality Police?Brett Catonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17189516566844609390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84390287315012316192011-07-16T09:34:33.907-05:002011-07-16T09:34:33.907-05:00You're wrong on body language and social cues....You're wrong on body language and social cues. Check out that post on Mythcommunications.<br /><br />Verbal cues: "Ok, I'm on my way to the bank, I think it's closing in about 10 minutes" and the guy keeps talking. Usually about nothing important. On the phone: "I have to run, I have about two more hours of work until I'm free today" and the guy keeps talking about everything except my request to end the conversation. Ugh.<br /><br />Visual cues: If I have earbuds in or am working on my laptop and staring at it intently, that's a bad time to interrupt me...yet men do it all the time. Why?<br /><br />If a man is going to interrupt me while I'm reading a book, it would be nice if he had some interest in the book. They never do.<br /><br />If I'm carrying an armload of groceries down the street? Also not a good time to hit on me. It's pretty clear that I'm doing something, right?<br /><br />If I'm randomly waiting around, I have no problem having a conversation with someone else...the problem is that men mostly try and start conversations with me when I'm in the middle of doing something. Not. Cool.<br /><br />I think you're really missing the point on all this, however. This discussion actually has nothing to do with determining whether propositions are obscene. It has to do with showing something resembling common sense and courtesy toward the person you're speaking to.<br /><br />If someone I didn't know propositioned me out of the blue, in the middle of the night in an elevator, I'd probably have kicked him in the balls, and possibly called security too. The guy obviously has zero interest in me as anything but a place to stick his penis. Why should I have to be polite to someone who's being a useless jerk? Why doesn't he just go find a prostitute if he wants random sex with a stranger?<br /><br />If you want to hit on someone, use some common sense and maybe, you know, actually try *talking* to the other person first before propositioning him or her? Maybe try seeing if there's any interest or spark there before propositioning someone? It's common sense.<br /><br />That's what started this entire discussion -- the fact that there's a bunch of men at atheist conferences who don't care about women as people, they only view them as sex toys. That's why I'll never go to another one - if I'm not going to be listened to and I'll continue getting sexually harassed, why would I want to go? I'll go find something that's actually fun to do.<br /><br />If you want a woman's attention, try treating her like she's a human being and pay attention if she says she has things to do. It's simple respect, and the fact that men claim they can't do it is the "sexist" part of this. You guys CAN do it...you choose not to.<br /><br />I'm on the Asperger's scale and I've learned to read social and facial cues and body language. If I can do it, other people can too. The fact that people don't bother to learn speaks volumes about their contempt for others. I'm better off without people like that in my life, and I think quite a few other women feel the same way.Christinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10230580489406608733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68954196848559568212011-07-16T09:10:13.067-05:002011-07-16T09:10:13.067-05:00@ChristineCCR
But "Being politely propositio...@ChristineCCR <br />But "Being politely propositioned" and "not politely propositioned" are different. Standing around doing nothing is very different from busily doing activity. So I'm not sure why you think i'd believe it was polite to interrupt you when you are busy.<br /><br />Also, regarding the ring, tell me when those things start to work because i have seen far too many infidelities to have much faith in them. But fewer people would proposition someone wearing a ring than otherwise, which does make things complicated for the people who are married but in open relationships. <br /><br />However...<br /><br /><br />"I don't have any sympathy for men who refuse to pay attention to visual and verbal cues."<br /><br />If you have given them a verbal cue (e.g. "not interested" then they have already all the information they need. Continued proposition is not polite. What sort of verbal cues do you employ? Humming the "Macarena"? If it's "I'm just a girl who can't say no", change your tune.<br /><br /><br /><br />Visual cues, aside from the wedding ring are just too ambiguous. And remember a lot of committed people don't wear them and uncommitted do. <br /><br />Or if you mean body language, pfft, men are not wired that way as a rule. Even highly trained people can't read other people's body language reliably, which is why we invented language(as in hominids, not sapiens per se, and a few other species have some claim to it as well)<br /><br />Quite a significant proportion of the male population is almost entirely unable to read body language. They reason out how people are feeling but it takes effort. There's a smaller proportion of women like that, but they are still there, and both groups are hardly to be ignored.<br /><br /><br />So here's a scenario. Person A says to person B "I find you very attractive. Would you go to bed with me?"<br /><br />Is that obscene?<br /><br />Does it matter what's between their legs as to whether it's offensive?<br /><br />Can Person B employ violence on A in retaliation legally? Should the law be changed so that they can?<br /><br />This is not a hypothetical question. This was typically used in defence by gay-bashers. "He made an advance on me! I felt threatened! He might have raped me!"<br /><br />Thaat's in scenarios where all that happened was that words were used. No invasion of body space, no leaning over, cornering, whatever. Just words.<br /><br />And that defense used to work.Brett Catonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17189516566844609390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-62901659916787019582011-07-16T08:09:06.854-05:002011-07-16T08:09:06.854-05:00Dear Blergh,
Men constantly interrupt me when I&#...Dear Blergh,<br /><br />Men constantly interrupt me when I'm doing things because they seem to think they have some sort of right to demand my attention no matter what I'm doing.<br /><br />They're interrupting me and either keeping me from doing something I want to do, or making it difficult to get work/errands done.<br /><br />I don't have any sympathy for men who refuse to pay attention to visual and verbal cues. I don't have any sympathy for a man who'd interrupt me but not interrupt a guy under the same circumstances...that tells me he doesn't regard me as an equal, and thus he doesn't deserve my time or attention.<br /><br />Finally, I'm married, and you'd think a wedding ring would keep me from having to put up with this crap. <br /><br />Nope.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />An irritated woman who still wonders why some guy thought it would be a good idea to stop me out on the street and try to get me to laugh at a woman getting her kids out of her car on a really hot day while I was carrying an armload of perishable items. Seriously, wtf?Christinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10230580489406608733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33094287992987592792011-07-16T05:58:14.492-05:002011-07-16T05:58:14.492-05:00I still wonder what my survival chances would be i...I still wonder what my survival chances would be if i was stuck in a lift with RW wearing a t-shirt which said SHUT UP WOMAN,GET ON MY HORSE <br /><br />http://youtu.be/YSOqUswBfMsBrett Catonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17189516566844609390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-55751688464147373382011-07-16T04:45:46.537-05:002011-07-16T04:45:46.537-05:00If there's one thing I have learnt from readin...If there's one thing I have learnt from reading this is don't hit on a woman, ever. Wherever, whenever you may be, there might be something she finds creepy. <br /><br />To me, RW's position is:<br /><br />I didn't tell EG not to hit on me. Although everyone thinks i did. But anyway, he did it! And he did it at a bad place! And a bad time!<br /><br />So was there any possible good place? Or time?<br /><br />No, apparently. A disturbing number of posters on this and other blogs are pulling out the prudish "any sexual proposition by a male is wicked!" line that I thought died with the 50s. Telling men that they may not do this, because it's creepy, unless it's part of a romantic activity or whatever, wow, so much for sexual liberation!<br /><br />And it gets worse. It's a rule that only applies to het. men. Because "they just want to get their dicks wet" as one poster put contemptuously. Well, do you tell lesbians not to do the same bloody thing because they "just want to get their clits licked"? Nope, just men? Because men are, apparently, disgusting.<br /><br />So here's the deal. If you tell someone that it's not ok to do something at location x and time y, and they say what about we vary those variables, later or earlier, before the lift, in a hall, and you scream YOU JUST DON'T GET IT YOU PRIVILEGED PENIS/GENDER TRAITOR then reason has left the building.<br /><br />You know what? It's not harassment to find someone attractive, it's harassment when you repeat unwanted advances. Being politely propositioned by someone you don't think is hot? That's life. Get over it.Brett Catonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17189516566844609390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-46534582941073518152011-07-15T23:37:48.286-05:002011-07-15T23:37:48.286-05:00I won't bother rehashing every point that'...I won't bother rehashing every point that's been made so far, but I do want to address two issues:<br /><br />1) The man who lied about how 1/3 of all rape reports are false. The rate of false reports of rape is around 2%.<br /><br />http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=29ADC4918E481BB73867D9EB7C968144.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=430299<br /><br />2) That men "can't read women's minds":<br /><br />http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/mythcommunication-its-not-that-they-dont-understand-they-just-dont-like-the-answer/<br /><br />So to those few who keep whingeing on about how we don't have enough facts and that Rebecca is a horrible misandrist: does it bother you more that a woman said no, or that she understood exactly what was going on?<br /><br />From the way a few men are carrying on about how they have a "right" to hit on women anytime they want to (which they don't have), it's pretty clear that they don't care about how women respond to them...and they're actually just fine with making women uncomfortable because they don't think women have any sort of right to privacy and a life free of harassment (which they actually do have, by law). <br /><br />And these guys claim to be rational thinkers and skeptics?Christinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10230580489406608733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-30265541420138828922011-07-15T15:54:32.055-05:002011-07-15T15:54:32.055-05:00@BSkrilla
Damn good post you made. Both sides do ...@BSkrilla<br />Damn good post you made. Both sides do make points but people really seem to be taking it out of proportion to the extreme. For those of you who haven't read it, it is located on the first page of comments.<br /><br />When I first heard of this it made sense for each of them, and I thought "Okay, I get both of your points". I don't need clarification to know that Dawkins doesn't hate women or Rebecca thinks all guys are rapists or some extreme ridiculous view. Now it's this massive mess with people being completely irrational about it. It makes me sad to see people degrade like this, to throw each other under the bus when we're supposed to be rational. Emotions shouldn't take over and people shouldn't call Dawkins a misogynist or Rebecca some feminazi. If anything I think a better solution would be to clarify each person's position so the wrong message doesn't get interpreted. I get into disagreements multiple times where after a whole lot of talking I find the person I am speaking to has a very close position to mine.<br /><br />We should want to understand what they meant exactly in a non-threatening environment. We need more communication and clarification before aggression.SamuelHanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07897812965554924957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-51411413088722236812011-07-15T00:35:52.639-05:002011-07-15T00:35:52.639-05:00I have to admit my mouth dropped open when I read ...I have to admit my mouth dropped open when I read what Dawkins wrote. He's my favorite horseman of the apocalypse...not that I idolize him or anything.<br /><br />Short story: Dawkins was fractally wrong on this one, but I'm not going to throw him under the bus. It seems like a rational position to take.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01023683680327256933noreply@blogger.com