Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

A forum to talk about other sites and things you've found in the jungle that is the internet.

Please take a moment to read the rationalia guidelines: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449
Post Reply
Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:07 pm

stripes4 wrote:not automatically, no. I didn't say that, as well you know.
So, based on exactly what Skepchick said, what's the big deal about the dork asking her to his room for coffee? She said no. He left.

Big deal?

User avatar
stripes4
Mrs Pawiz esq.
Posts: 8013
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:22 pm
About me: lucky
happy
bossy
lumpy
Contact:

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by stripes4 » Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:11 pm

No. I am not concerned, I CAN JUST SEE THAT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IT WOULD MAKE SOME WOMEN FEEL A BIT THREATENED AND NOT VERY SAFE. Like it or not, rape happens. Females raping males is rare and biologically unlikely!!! Men DO rape women so women DO tend to be on their guard when alone and it's late and it's dark and there aren't many people around. Men that do NOT understand and appreciate this are autistic morons, I've found. DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET??? PROBABLY NOT. See recent DIAGNOSIS
Generally opening mouth simply to change the foot that I'll be putting in there

User avatar
Geoff
Pouncer
Posts: 9374
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:39 pm
Location: Wigan, UK
Contact:

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Geoff » Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:17 pm

stripes4 wrote:No. I am not concerned, I CAN JUST SEE THAT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IT WOULD MAKE SOME WOMEN FEEL A BIT THREATENED AND NOT VERY SAFE. Like it or not, rape happens. Females raping males is rare and biologically unlikely!!! Men DO rape women so women DO tend to be on their guard when alone and it's late and it's dark and there aren't many people around. Men that do NOT understand and appreciate this are autistic morons, I've found. DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET??? PROBABLY NOT. See recent DIAGNOSIS
In certain circumstances yes, but this wasn't one of them.

Like most people who've posted, I really don't see why she thought it worth mentioning.
Image
"...anyone who says it’s “just the Internet” can :pawiz: . And then when they come back, they can :pawiz: again." - Tigger

User avatar
stripes4
Mrs Pawiz esq.
Posts: 8013
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:22 pm
About me: lucky
happy
bossy
lumpy
Contact:

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by stripes4 » Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:19 pm

Don't argue with me Geoff, or I won't shag you in a lift
Generally opening mouth simply to change the foot that I'll be putting in there

User avatar
Geoff
Pouncer
Posts: 9374
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:39 pm
Location: Wigan, UK
Contact:

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Geoff » Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:21 pm

stripes4 wrote:Don't argue with me Geoff, or I won't shag you in a lift
Deal.

Fancy a coffee? :coffee:
Image
"...anyone who says it’s “just the Internet” can :pawiz: . And then when they come back, they can :pawiz: again." - Tigger

User avatar
stripes4
Mrs Pawiz esq.
Posts: 8013
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:22 pm
About me: lucky
happy
bossy
lumpy
Contact:

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by stripes4 » Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:23 pm

SLAP!!!
Generally opening mouth simply to change the foot that I'll be putting in there

User avatar
Geoff
Pouncer
Posts: 9374
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:39 pm
Location: Wigan, UK
Contact:

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Geoff » Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:24 pm

:paddle:
Image
"...anyone who says it’s “just the Internet” can :pawiz: . And then when they come back, they can :pawiz: again." - Tigger

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74090
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by JimC » Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:07 am

stripes4 wrote:No. I am not concerned, I CAN JUST SEE THAT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IT WOULD MAKE SOME WOMEN FEEL A BIT THREATENED AND NOT VERY SAFE. Like it or not, rape happens. Females raping males is rare and biologically unlikely!!! Men DO rape women so women DO tend to be on their guard when alone and it's late and it's dark and there aren't many people around. Men that do NOT understand and appreciate this are autistic morons, I've found. DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET??? PROBABLY NOT. See recent DIAGNOSIS
It is perfectly understandable for a woman to feel uneasy in some elevator/late night/man asking her back for coffee scenarios. Men should indeed have the sensitivity to recognise these contexts, and keep invitations to coffee for other times.

However, what was irritating about the original blog was the the somewhat exaggerated way the incident was fitted into a particular brand of feminist theorising, one that does tend to tar all men with the same brush...

Even avuncular, bearded chaps wearing cardigans... :zilla:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Gallstones » Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:19 am

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Gallstones wrote:For the record, regardless of context, I--me--am not going to the hotel room of some guy I don't know and never met. I don't care what he says he wants to do there with me.

So, then if a guy asks you there for coffee, and you say no thanks, and he goes off on his merry way, has something misogynistic happened?
No.

Odd thing though, there are men who will say a woman's refusal of an advance is a refusal to submit to her role and is, in their perverse minds, misogynistic.

If she refuses him has anything misandrous happened?
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Gallstones » Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:26 am

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Gallstones wrote:When a woman says, "I don't like this. Don't do this" Fucking don't do it. Get it?
When a guy doesn't "do" anything, but merely asks her up for coffee, then he didn't do anything to stop doing. When she says "no" and he says "o.k., have a good night." Then nobody has done anything wrong. Get it?
Fuck you. You aren't paying any attention to what I get or don't get.
Gallstones wrote:
Don't call her frigid or a nut or a harpy.
You must be thinking of someone else.
Since I don't know you, I can't mean you, now can I?
Gallstones wrote: When we say these things we are doing you a favor--it is so you can be successful in connecting or even hooking up. Make sense?
Not in the least. You're not talking about what actually happened in the incident in question. You're apparently referring to some other incident where someone was told that a woman didn't like something done to her, and refused to stop doing it. That has about as much to do with some guy asking a woman up to his room for coffee and her saying no, and he saying o.k., as a rabbit with a pancake on its head. Make sense?
Now I am talking about you--you don't get it.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Gallstones » Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:30 am

Coito ergo sum wrote:
stripes4 wrote:not automatically, no. I didn't say that, as well you know.
So, based on exactly what Skepchick said, what's the big deal about the dork asking her to his room for coffee? She said no. He left.

Big deal?
It was a non-event, until Dawkins chimed in.
Get that?
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Gallstones » Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:34 am

Geoff wrote:
stripes4 wrote:No. I am not concerned, I CAN JUST SEE THAT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IT WOULD MAKE SOME WOMEN FEEL A BIT THREATENED AND NOT VERY SAFE. Like it or not, rape happens. Females raping males is rare and biologically unlikely!!! Men DO rape women so women DO tend to be on their guard when alone and it's late and it's dark and there aren't many people around. Men that do NOT understand and appreciate this are autistic morons, I've found. DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET??? PROBABLY NOT. See recent DIAGNOSIS
In certain circumstances yes, but this wasn't one of them.

Like most people who've posted, I really don't see why she thought it worth mentioning.
Here's the problem with Monday morning quarterbacking, none of us were there to witness body language, or affect or tone of voice or anything. We are all speculating and we can only speculate based on what we know and what we have experienced ourselves.

Anger doesn't come from out of nowhere--so there is some fire with all this smoke.

And another thing, I'm fucking tired of being asked to be considerate of the feelings of the poor (allegedly) shy and socially awkward man--I have insecurities too, like for my personal safety.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
hadespussercats
I've come for your pants.
Posts: 18586
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:27 am
About me: Looks pretty good, coming out of the back of his neck like that.
Location: Gotham
Contact:

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by hadespussercats » Sat Jul 09, 2011 2:09 am

Coito ergo sum wrote:
hadespussercats wrote:
stripes4 wrote:Haha. Charlou. It must be something about fantasising about having the 'decision' taken out of your hands. I wonder?? In REALITY, I think I would feel a bit nervous and vulnerable to be propositioned in a lift. In a bar, a club, a supermarket, or any other area with other people milling about, bring it on!!! but for me, if a man made the decision to proposition me in a confined space and with no one else in view, at best I would think him an insensitive dick head.
Context is important. He hadn't just seen Watson in the elevator-- he'd been listening to her talk about sexualization/objectification of women, for hours. How is it not clueless of him to ignore everything she said? If you want a woman not to feel objectified, paying attention to her clearly stated likes and dislikes is a good place to start.

And how is it not clueless of him not to realize that asking someone back to your place has a different effect when it's four in the morning and you're alone in an elevator, versus maybe asking her back at the bar, before she decided to leave? Or at any other point in the long day he'd spent as part of her audience?

Just saw you there, XC-- and...word.

But, is coming on to a woman one finds attractive, even in a clumsy or "inappropriate" manner, to be considered the sexualization/objectification of women? I mean, surely women who don't like to be objectified still might like to ride the baloney pony now and again?

How is it ignoring everything she said to make a clumsy attempt to ask her back to his room for coffer? Maybe he really did want to have a chat and grab a cup of coffee - it was 4am. Lots of people like a bit of coffee when it's late and they've been up all night.

As for the choice of location. He may well have not had an opportunity to talk to her. Maybe he was nervous. Maybe he wound up with her in the elevator purely by chance and thought "what the hell, I'll be nice and try to non-sexually ask her for a cup of java" to show her that he was a modern man who can invite a woman back to his room for something other than banging her. That's "clueless?" Maybe he had no interest in her except for intellectually - she's not that hot anyway, so maybe the guy really did want to have a chat?

I think one needs to make some really big assumptions about this guy in order to question his motives and call him clueless. And, even if he is clueless, and found her attractive but went about it the wrong way asking her in the wrong place at the wrong time - for the love of noGod - was the error of such monumental proportions that he is now to be considered a woman-hating sexist pig? From his clumsy approach, he sounds more like a nerd or a geek who had a couple two many drinks and made a dopey attempt to get to know this chick.

I'm not calling him a woman-hating sexist pig. Rebecca Watson didn't call him that, either. Her ire, as I understand it, was primarily directed at Dawkins' ridiculous response to her anecdote about a you-say-dopey, I-say-clueless (and the difference is...?) dude who asked her back to his hotel room in the wee hours of the morning.

As for whether his request that she come back to his room for coffee, after they'd incidentally just left a place that served coffee, was sexual in tone... you're right-- it might not have been a come-on. Maybe he was just that socially retarded that he didn't realize that to most people, getting someone alone at four in the morning and asking her to come back to your hotel room might likely come across as a come-on.

I'm glad you brought up that consideration. We've neglected the possibility that Rebecca Watson is poking fun at the socially retarded. And it's not nice to make fun of people who are challenged.
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.

Listen. No one listens. Meow.

User avatar
Xamonas Chegwé
Bouncer
Bouncer
Posts: 50939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by Xamonas Chegwé » Sat Jul 09, 2011 4:28 am

For... research purposes, could those Ratz ladies that would be comfortable with me shagging them stupid in a lift please let me know so that I don't accidentally commit some gross faux pas? kthx. :tea:
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing :nono:
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur

MrJonno
Posts: 3442
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:24 am
Contact:

Re: Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

Post by MrJonno » Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:23 am

Posted this on ratskep as well

Been to Skepchick site and I've come to a conclusion this isnt a Male versus Female thing its a American conservative (small c) culture versus British/Irish cultural thing.

I gather that in America the normal way of starting a relationship is find someone you have something in common with, go on a few dates confirm this have sex.

That is pretty rare in the UK (and I bet Ireland), where the norm is find someone you don't know that well but think is a bit fit ,get drunk, wait till they are drunk , seperate target from friends (as they can be judgemental even through they do the same thing) make pass , get rejected or accepted, have sex, then start going on dates and determine if you have enough in common to contiune the relationship.

Ever person who I know in the UK who is in a relationship started it by the 2nd method not the American date method
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests