GAD - 01 January 2012 10:39 AM

Yes, sad, but nothing to do with being atheist or misogynistic in my opinion.

Brick Bungalow - 01 January 2012 06:55 PM

I think its a big mistake to take a handful of crude comments and construe any kind of theory out of it. The exact same language is found in discussions about practically any subject you can imagine. This isn’t data that you can apply toward an evaluation of society. It has nothing to do with Sagans ideas or a general disrespect of children or anything else except a bunch of bored adolescents seeking negative attention.

I agree. The kinds of comments posted on Reddit are what pass for banter on many websites.

.

...SKEPTIC: But to vilify Rebecca instead because she didn’t ignore the potential threat posed by the guy’s manipulative behavior when she was in a situation on the cusp of where potential threats can become actual, live, up close and in person, is frankly pretty egocentric. She should apologize for annoying you, I suppose—for failing to be strong and ignore the probability, low as it may have been, that she was about to be assaulted, and for failing to keep it to herself rather than self-importantly suggesting we could stand to treat each other more conscientiously and behave in a more neighborly manner. She’s clearly just such a bitch!

If I am projecting, so is Richard Dawkins, who sees the elevator scenario from the same perspective I do….
 
“The man in the elevator didn’t physically touch her, didn’t attempt to bar her way out of the elevator, didn’t even use foul language at her. He spoke some words to her. Just words. She no doubt replied with words. That was that. Words. Only words, and apparently quite polite words at that….Rebecca’s feeling that the man’s proposition was ‘creepy’ was her own interpretation of his behavior, presumably not his. She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum. But he does me no physical damage and I simply grin and bear it until either I or he gets out of the elevator. It would be different if he physically attacked me.”

He also says…
“Here’s how you escape from an elevator. You press any one of the buttons conveniently provided. The elevator will obligingly stop at a floor, the door will open and you will no longer be in a confined space but in a well-lit corridor in a crowded hotel in the center of Dublin.”

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

I’m not claiming he’s right because he is our much esteemed Richard Dawkins, but because he’s making the same point I am and he can’t be accused of having a “personal agenda”, as you repeatedly accuse me of having.  He and I, like you,  have formulated opinions based on her public statements on the internet. 

As for “agendas”,….of course Rebecca has a political agenda.  She writes that she “travels around the world delivering entertaining talks on science, atheism, feminism, and skepticism.”  At the conference itself, she gave a talk about “Misogyny in the Atheist Movement” 
  .
Yes, she was afraid or else she is lying.  She felt, in her words, “extraordinarily uncomfortable”  (from her blog)  In the video, she says….“Um. Just a word to the wise here, guys: Uhhhh, don’t do that. Um, you know. [laughs] Uh, I don’t really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4am, in a hotel elevator with you, just you, ….”

No, that doesn’t sound like a strong woman.

As for him trying to “manipulate” her.  Where’s your evidence?  Who’s “projecting” now?  Even if he was trying to manipulate her, that’s the nature of social intercourse.  We all seek to influence others with our words.  As a matter of fact, it seems to me that she was “objectifying” him more than he her.  She, because of his sex, cast him in the role of sexual predator, when, in reality, he seemed to me he was just expressing an attraction to her and ineptly suggesting they get to know each other better.
 
I didn’t call her a bitch.  I called her a baby…an embarrassment to women.  Well,  SOME women….me.

saralynn - 02 January 2012 02:52 PM

I’m not claiming he’s right because he is our much esteemed Richard Dawkins, but because he’s making the same point I am and he can’t be accused of having a “personal agenda”, as you repeatedly accuse me of having.  He and I, like you,  have formulated opinions based on her public statements on the internet.

Most all reasonable and sensible people are making the same point. You have to project into another universe to come up with something else here.

As for “agendas”,….of course Rebecca has a political agenda.  She writes that she “travels around the world delivering entertaining talks on science, atheism, feminism, and skepticism.”  At the conference itself, she gave a talk about “Misogyny in the Atheist Movement”

Yeah, who would have guessed that someone who talks about men hating women would take an invitation for talk and coffee as sexist and hateful.

saralynn - 02 January 2012 02:52 PM

.

...SKEPTIC: But to vilify Rebecca instead because she didn’t ignore the potential threat posed by the guy’s manipulative behavior when she was in a situation on the cusp of where potential threats can become actual, live, up close and in person, is frankly pretty egocentric. She should apologize for annoying you, I suppose—for failing to be strong and ignore the probability, low as it may have been, that she was about to be assaulted, and for failing to keep it to herself rather than self-importantly suggesting we could stand to treat each other more conscientiously and behave in a more neighborly manner. She’s clearly just such a bitch!

If I am projecting, so is Richard Dawkins, who sees the elevator scenario from the same perspective I do….

The same perception doesn’t necessarily mean both are basing it on projection, but I’d say Dawkins’ position was equally ... flawed. That’s the comment that actually started the whole shitstorm. Dawkins took a lot of hits for that, and rightfully so. Phil Plait and PZ Myers and Greta Christina.

saralynn - 02 January 2012 02:52 PM

“The man in the elevator didn’t physically touch her, didn’t attempt to bar her way out of the elevator, didn’t even use foul language at her. He spoke some words to her. Just words. She no doubt replied with words. That was that. Words. Only words, and apparently quite polite words at that….Rebecca’s feeling that the man’s proposition was ‘creepy’ was her own interpretation of his behavior, presumably not his. She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum. But he does me no physical damage and I simply grin and bear it until either I or he gets out of the elevator. It would be different if he physically attacked me.”

He also says…
“Here’s how you escape from an elevator. You press any one of the buttons conveniently provided. The elevator will obligingly stop at a floor, the door will open and you will no longer be in a confined space but in a well-lit corridor in a crowded hotel in the center of Dublin.”

Yeah, I’m well aware of Dawkins’ utter failure of perspective on this issue. I read those comments when I initially learned about the whole Elevatorgate thing. Frankly they’re utterly vapid—utterly detached from the reality of the situation. He presumes the cooperation of the potential assailant, which is to simply dismiss the actual issue and pretend a cute comment about the ease of using an elevator when you’re not being assaulted. If I didn’t respect him so much I’d invite him to get in an elevator with me and see how easy it is to get out if I decide not to let him.

saralynn - 02 January 2012 02:52 PM

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

I’m not claiming he’s right because he is our much esteemed Richard Dawkins, but because he’s making the same point I am and he can’t be accused of having a “personal agenda”, as you repeatedly accuse me of having.  He and I, like you,  have formulated opinions based on her public statements on the internet.

I don’t know if he has any “agenda” behind his error, but I have no reason to think it’s anything other than an old school detachment from social progress most members of generations younger than his have made. In your case you’ve openly stated your agenda bias.

saralynn - 02 January 2012 02:52 PM

As for “agendas”,….of course Rebecca has a political agenda.  She writes that she “travels around the world delivering entertaining talks on science, atheism, feminism, and skepticism.”  At the conference itself, she gave a talk about “Misogyny in the Atheist Movement”

She also had the obvious agenda of not encouraging manipulatively hitting on her (or other women), and not being assaulted.

Yeah, she had an agenda, and it wasn’t until the ugly shitstorm that she was pushed to take a stronger stand than she did initially. Initially she dealt with it very soberly, as you just saw in her video blog ... although you seem to see a lot in that video blog that’s not there and miss a lot that is.

saralynn - 02 January 2012 02:52 PM

Yes, she was afraid or else she is lying.

Or you don’t understand the situation or security issues very well (at least at the moment—I’m pretty sure you’d quickly get past your denial and be well aware of them if you were in the same situation ... at least I certainly hope so). You’re also implying “fearfulness” rather than actual, functional fear, so in a sense you’re right, you’re just clueless as to the context in which the words you’ve used are accurate, and that’s unfortunate.

saralynn - 02 January 2012 02:52 PM

She felt, in her words, “extraordinarily uncomfortable”  (from her blog)  In the video, she says….“Um. Just a word to the wise here, guys: Uhhhh, don’t do that. Um, you know. [laughs] Uh, I don’t really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4am, in a hotel elevator with you, just you, ….”

No, that doesn’t sound like a strong woman.

Yup, it does.

It just sounds like a woman who’s not in denial about violence and security issues, and who dealt with the situation just fine. If you think she’d have to pretend the potential threat didn’t exist in order to be courageous then you have a rather twisted (or perhaps biased) notion of courage, and of fear.

saralynn - 02 January 2012 02:52 PM

As for him trying to “manipulate” her.  Where’s your evidence?

Already explained that.

It’s very clear in the language he used and the situation he had her in when he used it, and also I’m quite sure you’re well aware of obvious manipulative language like “Don’t take this the wrong way ... ” when it doesn’t suit you better not to.

saralynn - 02 January 2012 02:52 PM

Who’s “projecting” now?

More than likely you are ... still, again.

saralynn - 02 January 2012 02:52 PM

Even if he was trying to manipulate her, that’s the nature of social intercourse.  We all seek to influence others with our words.

I’ve already said there’s no reason to vilify the guy, but manipulative language used to get someone to have sex with you is inappropriate at best. It’s selfish in the extreme if you’re doing it intentionally, and ultimately it’s not too far from suggesting it’s okay to manipulate someone to have sex with you through fear, which suggests you “get it” but just don’t want to accept it. Fear is just a form of manipulation, after all, and it’s part of the nature of social discourse. So is violence. Do you think the fact that these things are natural makes them okay as well, or maybe you’re using fallacies because you don’t have any alternative here?

saralynn - 02 January 2012 02:52 PM

As a matter of fact, it seems to me that she was “objectifying” him more than he her.

Very likely, since his behavior indicated he was posing a potential threat to her safety at worst, trying to manipulate her to comply with his will over hers at best.

saralynn - 02 January 2012 02:52 PM

She, because of his sex, cast him in the role of sexual predator ...

That completely ignores his behavior, which is the issue, whether you want that to be the case or not. Or haven’t you noticed that’s pretty much the entirety of what she talks about when she went over the incident in her video blog ... ?

Are you still interested in accounting for the actual facts here, or do you just want to go into your agenda entirely?

And again, you’re arguing, basically, that she should have ignored the reality of being potentially assaulted in order to satisfy your personal sensibilities. You’re also jacking this up far more than she did, which is precisely how the Dark Side of this shitstorm went with the issue the first time. It was just a simple rebuke for questionable behavior until people freaked out over her gall for doing so. You have to be pretty fragile to be so easily roused to indignation.

saralynn - 02 January 2012 02:52 PM

... when, in reality, he seemed to me he was just expressing an attraction to her and ineptly suggesting they get to know each other better.

Yup, inappropriately, precisely as Rebecca said. So it would seem you actually do agree with her after all of that mental and perceptual contortion. Why so coy about it?

saralynn - 02 January 2012 02:52 PM

I didn’t call her a bitch.  I called her a baby…an embarrassment to women.  Well,  SOME women….me.

I didn’t mean to suggest you called her a bitch. I was making a point. But if anything I’d say you’ve got the sentiment in that last comment backwards ... sort of. It’s more callous and obstinate and/or stubbornly antiquated and backward than babyish though.

On the elevator gate thingie .. I totally agree with Dawkins (even if his comic skills are not quite up to his scientific and moral understanding) ... trying to misrepresent an inept pass as excessive misogyny trivializes the real problem and is an insult to women who have to deal with actual misogyny.

Didn’t you know that there’s commonly accepted etiquette which prohibit a man from asking a woman out if she doesn’t have a clear “escape route”? At least in the warped minds of crackpot feminist fundamentalists.

Re Skepchick: Having watched the video and after reading everything I could find on the matter (I did this some time back - I became aware of it on Pharyngula ages ago) I agree with Phil Plait and PZ Myers and Greta Christina etc.  An elevator at 4:00am is not the place to come onto a lone woman. I see nothing wrong with the guy’s desire to chat her up. It’s just the place. In a bar or any other place where there were other people or an exit there’d be no problem. But trapped in a lift I think I would feel uncomfortable, too. As much as I admire RD I think he was wrong here. He was wrong to make light of it by comparing it to what happens to women in other cultural contexts - a big wrong does not make a smaller wrong right.

And having looked at the sort of comments about that 15 year old girl I have to say I was disgusted. How would any of you studs like it if soem jerk was talking about your 15 year old daughter like that? Outrageous!

JohnTaylor=PlayTOE - 02 January 2012 07:54 PM

On the elevator gate thingie .. I totally agree with Dawkins (even if his comic skills are not quite up to his scientific and moral understanding) ... trying to misrepresent an inept pass as excessive misogyny trivializes the real problem and is an insult to women who have to deal with actual misogyny.

That was the strangest defensive argument Dawkins offered though. It says that other women have it far worse, so Rebecca’s got no grounds for her charge of misogyny. Taken to the extreme; You weren’t raped and killed missy, so you’ve got nothing to complain about! But not taken to the extreme, it says that women have no business complaining about being mistreated or particularly just treated unfairly, when other women are really suffering, and that’s precisely what we’re talking about here, though technically I agree “misogyny” is the wrong term. It’s just prejudice/discrimination, and whether misogyny is the root or even present is questionable.

Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 03 January 2012 04:29 AM

Re Skepchick: Having watched the video and after reading everything I could find on the matter (I did this some time back - I became aware of it on Pharyngula ages ago) I agree with Phil Plait and PZ Myers and Greta Christina etc.  An elevator at 4:00am is not the place to come onto a lone woman. I see nothing wrong with the guy’s desire to chat her up. It’s just the place. In a bar or any other place where there were other people or an exit there’d be no problem. But trapped in a lift I think I would feel uncomfortable, too.

Exactly. It really does require a suppression or ignorance of the context (willful or otherwise) in order to conclude she has no business complaining about it, and I’m pretty sure that the vast majority who make that argument (those who aren’t actually as clueless as their apologetics make them appear, anyway) would recognize the real issues if they were in the same position. That lack of empathy is curious to me, and a bit disconcerting.

Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 03 January 2012 04:29 AM

As much as I admire RD I think he was wrong here. He was wrong to make light of it by comparing it to what happens to women in other cultural contexts - a big wrong does not make a smaller wrong right.

Good explanation.

Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 03 January 2012 04:29 AM

And having looked at the sort of comments about that 15 year old girl I have to say I was disgusted. How would any of you studs like it if soem jerk was talking about your 15 year old daughter like that? Outrageous!

Yeah, and if we use Dawkins’ arguments;
Here’s how you get away from nasty online comments—don’t go to the website.
Pure, blatant red herring.

and

This 15 year old needs to get a sense of perspective—she wasn’t even touched, so she has no business whining that she was sexualized, and she wasn’t even touched, so her complaint trivializes all the real assaults other women have dealt with, and have to deal with, and will deal with.
Moving the goalposts/upping the ante/also a red herring.

Dawkins should know better.

Antisocialdarwinist - 02 January 2012 12:29 PM

GAD - 01 January 2012 10:39 AM

Yes, sad, but nothing to do with being atheist or misogynistic in my opinion.

Brick Bungalow - 01 January 2012 06:55 PM

I think its a big mistake to take a handful of crude comments and construe any kind of theory out of it. The exact same language is found in discussions about practically any subject you can imagine. This isn’t data that you can apply toward an evaluation of society. It has nothing to do with Sagans ideas or a general disrespect of children or anything else except a bunch of bored adolescents seeking negative attention.

I agree. The kinds of comments posted on Reddit are what pass for banter on many websites.

Hey, we’re talking about a child here. The following is some of the ‘banter’:

•  Well, 15 is legal many places, including my country, so I’ll only have to deal with abduction charges.
•  You call it kidnapping.  I call it surprise adoption.
•  “Relax your anus, it hurts less that way.”
•  “Blood is mother nature’s lubricant.”
•  “BITE THE PILLOW, IM GOIN’ IN DRY!”
•  I’d put billions and billions in your pale blue dot.
•  I’d occupy her habitable zone
•  I’d go at that so hard, my entire body would appear blue on approach
•  Upvote for creative use of Doppler effect in sexual allegory
•  I’d read that book so f***ing hard to you.

I know we get into a lot of bawdy talk here but not about children. It’s just wrong. And please, I hope no one is goping to tell me that some 15 year olds are as mature as 18 or 20 year olds. Physically, they may have secondary sex characteristics but psychologicvally (and legally) they are kids. This sort of talk in realtion to a kid is just wrong, dammit! And don’t tell me she shouyldn’t be on the website if she can’t take the heat. I can’t believe I’m having to argue this case. What if she was your daughter?

Actually, I, too, am critical of many of Dawkins comments, but,nevertheless, I stand by everything I said in regard to Rebecca, although, if we weren’t analyzing it to such a degree, it would simply be a passing irritation.

My best friend is a feminist lesbian and we sometimes get into awful arguments about matters such as these.  I am frustrated because she always seems to view the world from a feminist perspective, while I think of myself as being much more….expansive.  (I decided not to use the word “broad-minded” to avoid confusion) 

Anyway.  we seem to have exhausted the subject.  However, do you think there is a problem with “mysogyny in the atheist movement”?

There is obviously a preponderance of males in the movement, but are they inclined to hate women?  Aside from the bawdy comments, I don’t see that on PR..  But then again, I suppose it depends on your perspective.  My friend the lesbian would be outraged by some of the jokes.  So, I suppose, would Rebecca.

saralynn - 03 January 2012 06:57 AM

Anyway.  we seem to have exhausted the subject.  However, do you think there is a problem with “mysogyny in the atheist movement”?

There is obviously a preponderance of males in the movement, but are they inclined to hate women?  Aside from the bawdy comments, I don’t see that on PR..  But then again, I suppose it depends on your perspective.  My friend the lesbian would be outraged by some of the jokes.  So, I suppose, would Rebecca.

I think prejudice and/or discrimination are better terms (for the Elevatorgate thing as well), and I wouldn’t have thought we had a problem with prejudice/discrimination against women to anywhere near the degree we’ve demonstrated in these two interwebs shitstorms (it’s much more about the way things go down in the fight over who is right and wrong and who is more like Hitler after the fact than anything that happened in the actual catalyzing incident). I suspect the interwebs tends to reveal that which is otherwise hidden live and in person rather than that much of it can just be dismissed as online play acting (or posturing, or whatever), but I also think such sentiments are exaggerated (and villains selected/created), particularly online, when we choose up sides and invest in them, and start flinging the argumentative poo.

Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 03 January 2012 06:19 AM

Antisocialdarwinist - 02 January 2012 12:29 PM

GAD - 01 January 2012 10:39 AM

Yes, sad, but nothing to do with being atheist or misogynistic in my opinion.

Brick Bungalow - 01 January 2012 06:55 PM

I think its a big mistake to take a handful of crude comments and construe any kind of theory out of it. The exact same language is found in discussions about practically any subject you can imagine. This isn’t data that you can apply toward an evaluation of society. It has nothing to do with Sagans ideas or a general disrespect of children or anything else except a bunch of bored adolescents seeking negative attention.

I agree. The kinds of comments posted on Reddit are what pass for banter on many websites.

Hey, we’re talking about a child here. The following is some of the ‘banter’:

•  Well, 15 is legal many places, including my country, so I’ll only have to deal with abduction charges.
•  You call it kidnapping.  I call it surprise adoption.
•  “Relax your anus, it hurts less that way.”
•  “Blood is mother nature’s lubricant.”
•  “BITE THE PILLOW, IM GOIN’ IN DRY!”
•  I’d put billions and billions in your pale blue dot.
•  I’d occupy her habitable zone
•  I’d go at that so hard, my entire body would appear blue on approach
•  Upvote for creative use of Doppler effect in sexual allegory
•  I’d read that book so f***ing hard to you.

I know we get into a lot of bawdy talk here but not about children. It’s just wrong. And please, I hope no one is goping to tell me that some 15 year olds are as mature as 18 or 20 year olds. Physically, they may have secondary sex characteristics but psychologicvally (and legally) they are kids. This sort of talk in realtion to a kid is just wrong, dammit! And don’t tell me she shouyldn’t be on the website if she can’t take the heat. I can’t believe I’m having to argue this case. What if she was your daughter?

No one here justified saying those things to a 15 year old. But to claim it is because they were atheist and misogynistic isn’t justifiable.

saralynn - 03 January 2012 06:57 AM

Anyway.  we seem to have exhausted the subject.  However, do you think there is a problem with “mysogyny in the atheist movement”?

Agreed and no.

There is obviously a preponderance of males in the movement, but are they inclined to hate women?  Aside from the bawdy comments, I don’t see that on PR..  But then again, I suppose it depends on your perspective.  My friend the lesbian would be outraged by some of the jokes.  So, I suppose, would Rebecca.

If I told her I found her attractive (in a public place with lots of police around) she would say I’m sexulizing her and a misogynist. If I told her I don’t find her attractive she would say it’s because she doesn’t conform to my sexiest and misogynist ideas of a women.

I’m told I appear rather intimidating to strangers, so when I’m in a small space with a woman who doesn’t know me I actually try to do everything I can to appear as non-threatening as possible.  I imagine I’d be even more careful to do so at 4 am.  I don’t speak unless spoken to, I often do something to appear distracted (e.g. looking at my phone, scanning whatever documents I have with me, keep my hands where she can see them, etc…), and I give the woman as much space as I can.  There are enough violent men out there that I have no interest in even remotely giving the impression that I’m one of them.